Skip to main content

Full text of "John Profumo-Christine Keeler Matter FBI Files"

See other formats



.... iflr 


(i) St^phca Waid 

10. The story must start wth Stephen Ward, aged 50. The toil of a 
clergyman, by profession he was an osteopath with consulting rooms at 
38. Devonshire Street. W. 1. His skill was very considerable and he included 
among his patients many well-known people. He was also an accomplished 
portrait artist. His sitters included people of much eminence. He bad a 
quick and easy manner of conversation which attracted some but repelled' 
others. It pleased him much to meet people in high places, and he was prone 
to exaggerate the saturc of his aCijUaiSvouCcships Vrith thesi. He would sp e a k 
of many of them as if they were great friends when, more often than not, he 
had only treated them as patients or drawn their portraits. 

11. Yet he was at the same time utterly immoral. He bad a small house 
or flat ia London at 17. Wimpole Mews. W. 1.. and a country cottage on 
the Cliveden Estate next to the River Thames. He used to pick up pretty 
girls of the age of 16 or 17, often from night clubs, and induce them to 
come and stay with him at his house in London. He used to take these 
girls down at week-ends to his cottage. He seduced many of these himself. 
He also procured them to be mistresses for his influential friends. He did not 
confine his attention to promiscuity. He catered also for fflose of his friends 
who had perverted tastes. There is evidence that he was ready to arrange 
for whipping and other sadistic performances. He kept collections of 
pornographic photographs. He attended parties where there were sexual 
orgies of a revolting nature. In money matters he was improvident He did 
not keep a banking account He got a firm of solicitors to keep a sort of 
banking account for him, paying in cheques occasionally to them and getting 
them to pay his rent More often he cashed his incoming cheques through 
other people; or paid his bills with the incoming cheques. He had many cash 
transactions which left no trace. 

12. .Finally, he admired the Soviet regime and sympathised with the 
Communists. He used to advocate their cause in conversation with his 
patients, so much so that several became suspicious of him. With others he 
was more discreet. He became very friendly with a Russian, Captain Eugene 
Ivanov. To him I now turn. 

<ii) EmcM ] 

13. Captain Eugene lvanov(0 was an assistant Rusaaa Naval Attach^ 
at the Russian Embassy in London. As such his lole would be diplomatic 
only. He came to this country on 27th March, i960. But the Securi^ aproe 
discovered that he was also a Russian Intelligence Officer. He 
not normally found in a Russian oflOcer in this country. His i 
reasonably good and be was able to converse easily. He <' 
a good deal and was something of a ladies* man. He was ! 
people in this country. He was very impressed by persons of t ' 

(1) He was Captain 2nd 1 
Royal Navy. 

L in the USSR Navy equivalent to 

Commuifcr in tha 

pecn of the realm. He lost no opportunity of advor^ariififc RattlaiL 
viewpoint He was, according to StcjAcn Waid. **an ih i o>i l w| dedicated 
Communist and also a nice person**. And he was qufla 0f0^htmi his 
position. Right from the start he wMild tell his heam '^MMfl^ yoo 
say goes bade to Moscow. Lodtxmt what you uyr _ /^.^v':^'.,' ;^ 

14. Stephen Ward and Captain Ivanov became great fiiaids. Cipcain 
Ivanov was often down at the cotttge at Cliveden at weekends. He visited 
Stephen Ward's house in London. They met in restaurants. T&ey often played 
bridge together. Stephen Ward introduced him to many of his friends, both 
those of high rank and also the girts. And Stephen Ward lost no opportunity 
of helping him. as the events show. 

15. It has been suggested to me that Ivanov filled a new role in Russian 
technique. It was to divide the United Kingdom from the United States by 
ftese devious means. If Ministers or prominent people can be placed in 
compromising situations, or made the subject of damagiog rumour. 6r the 
Security Service can be made to appear incompetent, it may weaken the 
confidence of the United StafiK in oar integrity and reliability* So a man 
like Captain Ivanov may take every o^Mrtunity of getting to know Ministers 
or prominent people — not so much to obtain information from them (thoqgh 
diis would be a useful by-product)— but so as to work towards destroying 
confidence. If this were the object of Captain Ivanov with Stephen Ward as 
his tool he succeeded only too welL - 

(iii) ChristiBe Kedcr 

16. Christine Keeler is a girl, now aged 21. whose home is at Wiraysbury. 
She left home at the age of 16 and went to London. She was soon employed 
at the Murray Cabaret Club as a show-girl, which involved, as she put it, 
just walking around with no clothe on. She had only been at the Cabaret 
Club a short time when Stephen Ward came there and they danced together. 
Thereafter he often telephoned her and took her out. After a very few days 
he asked her to go and live with him. She went. She ran away from him 
many times but she always went back. He seemed to control her. She lived 
with him at 17. Wimpole Mews, from about June, 1961. to March. 1962. He 
took her to his countiy cottage at Cliveden and he introduced her to many 
men. sometimes men of rank and position, with whom she had sexual 
intercourse. (A ju^ has since found him guilty on a charge of living on the 
earnings of her prostitution.) She had undoubted physical attractions. Later 
on he introduced her also to the drug Indian hemp and she became addicted 
to it. She coloured men who trafficked in it and she went to live with 

(iv) Mr. Profono 

17. Mr. Profumo was Secretary of State for War ted J^F* ^ 

Jimc, 1963. He is now aged 48. He had a fine war record ■■gtnm to the 
rank of brigadier. He entered Parliament in 1940 but lost hi»#^ in 1945. 
In 1950 he came back as the Member for the Stratfoiiipplwsion of 
Warwickshire. He has a distinguished record of service to tlMl country. He 
was Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Tran^ort and Gvil 
Aviation (1952). Parliamentary Under-Seaetary of State for the Colonies 

(1957) and Under-Secretaiy and later Minister of State. Foreign Office (1958): 
' and in 1960 he became Secietaiy of SUte for War. No one can dM|l M 
a man with su^ a record was entitled to the confidence of his c6B|pMi 
and of the country; and it should not be assumed by anyone that >fl|IWfM 
give away secret information. Whatever indiscretions he may have oOOMlilM 
and whatever falsehoods he may have toId» no one who has given evideaot 
before me has doubted his loyalty. In particular there was no reason for Ae 
Security Service to suspect it 

18. Mr. Profumo married in 1954 Miss Valerie Hobson. a talented 
actress, and her support of him over their difl&cult days is one of the most 
redeeming features of the events I have to describe. 

(v) Lord Astor 

19. Lord Astor succeeded his father in 1952 and inherited the estate at 
Cliveden. He had previously taken an active part in pohtics but since that 
time he has devoted himself to his private affairs and to charities in which 
he is interested. He has done valuable work for hospitals, particularly the 
Canadian Red Cross Memorial Hospital at Cliveden. He has done a great 
deal for refugees, and has been all over the world on their behalf. He has 
provided a large sum as a Foundation for scientific and other studies. He 
has played an important part in many educational and social charities. He 
has also important business interests. He inherited a famous stud of 
racehorses, which he manages himself, and also a farm of 250 acres. 

20. Cliveden is one of the great houses of the country. It is owned by 
the National Trust but the present Lord Astor is the tenant He has upheld 
its tradition of hospitality. He has guests staying most week-ends and often 
friends for meals. They include the names of some of the most distinguished 
and respected people in the land. 

21. Lord Astor got to know Stephen Ward in 1950 when he went to him 
as a patient after a fall at hunting. Stephen Ward treated him well and cured 
him. Ever since that time Lord Astor has sent him many of his friends as 

22. In 1956 Lord Astor let Stephen Ward a cottage on the Cliveden 
Estate. The cottage was down by the river, while the big house is on top of 
the hill. To get from the cottage to the house it is a quarter to half a mile's 
steep walk, or one mile by road. Stephen Ward used to come up at week-ends 
and give osteopathic treatment to Lord Astor and to those of his guests who 
desired it. The account, including payment for the guests, was charged to 
Lord Astor. 'Stephen Ward often had visitors at this cottage. Usually they 
came for the day. and remained down at the cottage. When Stephen Ward 
went to the big house to give treatment he went by himself. Qo ocei>k»i^ 
Lord Astor invited him to come up to Cliveden for lunch or for driafcf 

23. Lord Astor had no sympathy with Stephen Ward's politkllfllBin 
and made it clear to him. But at the pressing request of Stephen WlidL 1» 
did on occasions help him in approaching the Foreign Office (as will «pp0«r 
later), but not in any way sponsoring his views. 


24. Lord Astor has helped Stephen Ward with money froajliie to tinw. ^ 
In 1952. when Stephen Ward starting, not yet estMMn poctioe. 
Lord Astor lent him £U50. which Stephen Ward repaid o »g l^w coeecfing 
years by professional services. And Lord Astor hat on oodumm advanced 
sums to him since, on the understanding that it was an advance to be repaid 
by expenses of treatment In May. 1963, Stephen Ward opened a banking 
account and Lord Astor guaranteed an overdraft up to £1300. This ynB 
because Stephen Ward anticipated legal expenses and also desired to aoquize 
premises fc: an office and residence. All the receipts from his practice and 
elsewhere w^t to go towards repayment 

25. Stephen Ward often expressed a wish to go to Moscow. He wanted 
to draw pictures of the personalities there, particularly Mr. Khrushchev. He 
told this to the Editor oC a newspaper who was a patient of his. The Editor 
happened to have met Captain Ivanov: and invited Stephen Ward to hmch 
and meet him. This was on 20th January. 1961. Stephen Ward took an 
immediate liking to Captain Ivanov. He began to enlist Ivanov's help to 
arrange sittings with Mr. Khrushchev. The Security Service got to know of 
their friendship and on 8th June. 1961. saw Stephen Ward about it A few 
weeks later came the Cliveden week-end. 

26. The week-end of Saturday, 8th July. 1961, to Sunday. 9th July. 1961. 
is of critical importance. Lord and Lady Astot had a large party of 
distinguished visitors to their great house at Cliveden. They included 
Mr. Ftofumo, the Secretary of State far War, and his wife, Mn. Profumo. 
who stayed the week-end. Other visitors came to meals but did not stay the 
night Stephen Ward entertained some young girls at his cottage. One of these 
was Christine Kcelcr, who was then living with him. Captain Ivanov came 
down on the Sunday. There is a fine swimming pool in the grounds at Cliveden 
near the main house, and Lotd Asux, on occasions, allowed Stephen Ward 
to use it with his friends so long as it did not dash with his own use of it 

27. On the Saturday, after nightf^, Stephen Ward and some of the 
girls were bathing in the swimming pool when one of them. Christine Keeler, 
whilst she was in the water, took 6S her bathing costume, threw it on the 
bank, and bathed naked. Soon afterwards Lord Astor and a party of his 
visitors walked down after dinner to the swimming pool to watch the bathing. 
Lord Astor and Mr. Ptofnmo walked ahead of Lady Astor. Mrs. Profumo 
and Ae others. Christine Keeler rushed to get her swimming costume. 
Stephen Ward threw it on one side so that she could not get it at once and 
Christine seized a towel to hide herself. Lord Astor and Mr. Profumo arrived 
at this moment, and it was all treated as a piece of fiu— it was over in a few 
mmutes, for the ladies saw nolidng iodeoent at all. Stephen Ward and the 
girls afterwards got dressed and went tip to the house and joined the party for 
a little whUjB. 

28. On the Sunday, after lunch. Stephen Ward and the girls and 
Captain Ivanov went to die swimming pool. Later Lord Astor aa Aj^ i of 
his party came down to swim too. There was a light-hearted. fHemne 
bathing party, where everyone was in bathing costumes and noiyuMoeiit 
took place at alL PliotQgra^ were tsUun by Mr. Profumo and o4pk Ttegr 
showed, of course, that Mr. Prctfnmo was there with some of ^'-0^ ^ 
sothiqg improper whatever. 

29. Captain Ivanov left Clived^ in the early eveniQg and took Ch ri stine 
Keeler back wHh him to town. They went to St^hen Wud*s house nd there 

(i) Hw SwiMBiiv Ml 

■ 11 

dtank a good deal and there were perhaps some kind of sexual fdatioas. . 
Captain Ivanov left the house befbie Stephen Ward faimteir tfit bade 9t 
midnight But Captain Ivanov never became the lover of Chffsdiit^^ - 

(ii) Mr. Profuno*s AsMciatioB with ChrisdM Frshf ^- ^ 

30. It is apparent that during this week-end Mr. ftoluioo was much 
attracted by Christine Keeler and determined to see her again, if he could 
This was. of course, easy, through Stephen Ward. In the next few days and 
weeks Mr. Profumo made assignations with Christine Keefer. He visited 
her . at Stephen Ward's house and had sexual intercourse with her there. 
Somttimcs he called at a time when Stephen Ward or someone else "was 
there. He would then take her for a drive until the coast was clear. On ou4 
occasion he did not use his own car because his wife had it in the country. 
He used a car belonging to a Minister which had a mascot on it He drove 
her to see Whitehall and Downing Street, also Regents Park. Mr. Profumo 
wrote two or three notes to Christine Keeler and gave her one or two prcscritai 
such as perfume and a cigarette lighter. She said her parents were badly oS 
and he gave her £20 for them, realising that this was a polite way on het 
part of asking for money for her services. In August. 1961, whilst his wifo 
was in the Isle of Wight, he took Christine Keeler to his own house in 
Regent's Park. Altogether I am satisfied that his object in visiting her waa 
simply because he was attracted by her and desired sexual intercourse with 
her. It has been suggested that Captain Ivanov was her lover also. I do not 
think he was. The night of Sunday, 9th July. 1%1. was an isolated occasion, 
I think that CapUin Ivanov went to Stephen Ward*s house for social 
entertainment and conversation, and not for sexual intercourse. I do not 
believe that Captain Ivanov and Mr. Profumo ever met in Stephen Ward's 
house or in the doorway. They did no doubt narrowly miss one another on 
occasions: and this afforded Stephen Ward and Christine Keeler much 
amusement. (Later on a great deal has been made of this episode. It hias 
been suggested that Captain Ivanov and Mr. Profumo were sharing her 
services. I do not accept this suggestion.) 

(ili) The Request for InformatioB 

31. About this time, probably during the Cliveden week-end. Captain 
Ivanov told Stephen Ward that the Russians knew as a fact that the American 
Government had taken a decisloa to arm Western Germany with atomic 
weapons, and he asked Ward to find out through his influoitial friends 
when this decision was to be implemented. Without saying SO in so many 
words. Captain Ivanov with some subtlety impUed that if Stephen Ward 
supplied the answer his trip to Moscow would be facilitated. 

32. One of the most critical points in my inquiry is this: Did Stephen 
Ward ask Christine Keeler to obtain from Mr. Profumo iafijii|liniii as to 
the time when the Americana were going to supply the stoMp bomb to 
Germany? If he did ask her. it was probably at diis time t| prfy. 1961 : 
for it was the very thing that Captain Ivanov had asked *?ffj p «« Waid to 
find out from his influential firiends. I am very dubious about her tecollectioa 
about this. She has given several different versions, of it and put it at different 


/^IM. (She once uid it was at the time of Oe Cuban crisis in Octobt^lMl^ 

The tiudi aboDt it is, 1 think, this: Thoe was a good deal of I 
presence, between Stephen Ward and CapUln Ivanov, about fein% oil 
information. And Stephen Ward may well have turned to her aar said, 
" You oi^t to ask Jack (Prolumo) about it ^ But I do not think it was 
said as seriously as it has since been reported. Stephen Ward said to me 
(and here I believed him). 

Quite honestly, nobody in their right senses would have asked 
somebody like Christine Keeler to obtain any information of that sort 
from Mr. Profumo — he would have jumped out of his skin.** 

If said at all by Stephen Ward, it w»^ I believe, not said seriously expecting 
her to act on it I am quite satisfied that she never acted on it sne toid 
me, and I believed her, that she never asked Mr. Frofumo for the informatioiu 
Mr. Profumo was aUo clear that she never asked him, and I am quite sure 
that he would not have told her if she had adced hun. (Lata on a great deal 
has been made of this episode. I diink the importance of it has been greatly 

(iv) Sir Norman Brook*s Warning 

33, On the 31st July. 1961, the Head of the Security Service suggested 
to Sir Norman Brook (the then Secretary of the Cabinet, now Lord 
Normanbrook) that it might be useful for him to have a word with 
Mr. Profumo about Stephen Ward and Captain Ivanov. (I will deal with 
the reasons for this later when I deal with the operation of the Security 
Service.) In accordance with this request on 9th August, 1 96 1. Sir Norman 
Brook suggested to Mr. Profumo that he should be careful in his dealings 
with Stephen Ward. He said there were indications that Stephen Ward might 
be interested in picking up scraps of information and passing them on to 
Captain Ivanov. Mr. Profumo wa$ grateful for the warning. He told 
Sir Norman that he met Captain Ivanov at the Cliveden week-end and 
then, after the encounter at Cliveden, he saw Captain Ivanov at a reception 
at the Soviet Embassy. On that occasion Captain Ivanov seemed to make 
a special point of being civil to him, These were the only two occasions on 
which Mr. Profumo had come across Captain Ivanov. On the other hand he 
was better acquainted with Stephen Ward. Mr. Profumo went on to say 
that many people knew Stephen Ward and it might be helpful if warning 
were given to others too. He mentioned the name of another Cabinet 
Minister whom Sir Norman afterwards did warn. Sir Norman Btock referred 
rather delicately to another matter which had been suggested by the Head 
of the Security Service. Was it possible to do anything to persuade Ivanov 
to help us? But Mr. Profumo thought he ought to keep wdil away from it 

34. It has been suggested that Sir Norman Brook went 
province at this point; and that he ought to have reported to 
Minister, and not taken it upon lumsdf to vpak to Mr. ftoAa , 
this criticism is based on a misappieh«ision. Neither the SecH|j^| 
nor Sir Norman Brook had any doubts of Mr. Profumo. They did 
that he was having an affair with Christine Keeler and had no 
suspect it I\have seen a note made by Sir Norman Brook at die 
all that he ^ tdd by the Head of the Security Seirvke; The ma 

I ^ 13 



being made by them was that Stephen Wild might be Imllii rtrf jjiMi cia 
bits of infonnatioa to Captain Ivanov. It was therefoce dirinS^te warn 
Mr. Profinno of this possibility. Furthermore there was a thd^^ fit Qiptaia 
Ivanov might be persuaded to defect These seem to me to whidi^ 
were very suitable for the Secretary of the Cabinet to miSBliM^ Ifim. bitt 
hardly such as to need the intervention of the Frime Mbdrter; ^ ; '^1 

35. It was on Wednesday. 9th August. 1961. that Sir Nomian Brook 
spoke to Mr. Profumo. It made a considerable impiessi<»i 6o hint Mr. 
I^ofumo thought that the Security Service must have got knowledge of his 
affair with Christine Keeler: and that the real object of Sir Norman*s call 
on him (though not expressed) was politely to indicate that his assignations 
with Christuie Keeler should cease. It so happened that Mr. Profumo bad 
already arranged to see her the next night (Thursday. 10th August) but. 
as soon as Sir Norman left, he took steps to cancel the arrangement 

(v) The < Darling* Letter 

36. On the very same day as Sir Norman Brook spoke to him. Mr. 
Profumo wrote this letter to Quistine Keeler: * 



In great haste and because I can get no reply from your phone — 
Alas something's blown up tomorrow night and I can*t therefore 
make it Fm terribly sorry especially as I leave the next day for various 
trips and then a holiday so won't be able to see you again until some 
time hi September. Blast it Please take great care of yourself and dont 

Love J. 

P.S. Fm writing this 'cos I know you're off for the day tomorr9w 
and I want you to know beforp you go if I still can't reach you by phone.** 

37. I am satisfied that that letter, if not the end. was the beginning of 
the end of the association between Mr. Profumo and Christine Keeler. He 
may have seen her a few times more but that was alL It meant also that 
he stopped seeing Stephen Ward. Sir Nonnan Brook's talk had had its effect 
on him. Mr. Profumo only saw Stephen Ward again about the end of 
January, 1963. when there was a fear that his association with Christine 
Keeler would be made public. It has been said in some quarters that Mr. 
Profumo went on visiting Christine Keeler in 1962 when she was in Dolphin 
Square. * Lucky * Gordon gave evidence before me to this effect So did a 
man called Hogan. They said they knew it was Mr. Profumo by having 
seen hii photographs in the newspapers. I found myself unable to accept 
their evidence. Mr. Hogan had given a story to a newspaper that he was 
* butler * to Christine Keeler and took up coffee on two ( 
Profumo and Christine Keeler in bed. He told me that 1 
contract for £600 for this story to be split between him and 1 
reporters. But he was not a butler at all. He was a carpet i ' 
found it difficult to fix a definite date for the end of the i 
Mr, Profumo was seen by the CUrf Whip on 4th Febnai*, 
it had ** all taken place between July and December of 1961 **, and in hii 
statement in the House of Commons on 22nd March. 1963. he Mid. **I last 


law Miss Keeler in December. 1961, and I have not seen her aim'*. 
Christine Keeler herself, in her statement to the Press on 26th MtfC^ 14(31 
adopted this date, evidently followiag him. I have heard their wiidjjti em 
this point Mr. Profumo is sure that he brought it to an end when Sfar I*" 
Brook gave him the warning, and he wrote the letter to her the seff S 
day. The mistake about the date was because he remembered Sr 1 
Brook saying. ** I thought I should see you before we go away for the recess.'* 
and he thought it was the December recess (not having the letter or date 
before him) but later on. when he got the date, he resdised it was in fact 
the August recess. Whatever be the truth about this. I am quite satisfied the 
association did not last very long. It certainly ended by December. 1961. 


38. After August, 1961. Stephen Ward «aw little or'iBd^g of 
Mr. Profumo. But he continued very friendly with Captain Ivnbt and it is 
plain that Captain Ivanov was continually asking Stephen Ward questibna 
about the general political intentions of the British: and that Stephen Waitf 
did his best to get all the information he could for Ivisnov. He sought hielp 
from his influential friends in this behalf, particularly Loid Astor and 
Sir Godfrey Nicholson, M.P. 

(i) Hie Berlin CrWf " 

39. One thing he did was td get Lord Astor to write to the Foreign Office 
on 2nd September. 1961. In this letter Lord Astor said he had a friend called 
Stephen Ward, who had become a friend of Captain Ivanov and suggested 
that if the Foreign Office wished to ensure at any particulat nioment that 
the Russian Embassy was absolutely correctly informed as to Western 
intentions, Stephen Ward would be useful. Stephen Ward could pass on (he 
information himself or could very easily arrange for Captain Ivanov to meet 
anyone. In consequence of this letter, on I Sth September. 1961, the Foreign 
Office interviewed Stephen Ward. He gave a long account of his political views 
and said that he was anxious to turn his friendship with Captain Ivanov to 
useful account He was told quite plainly that the Foreign Office would not 
wish to avail themselves of his services. 

40. The next thing he did was to get Sur Godfrey Nicholson. M.P., to 
meet Captain Ivanov. (Sir Godfrey knew Stephen Ward well and had been 
a patient of his for many years — and had recommended him to many others. 
Sir Godfrey is, of course, a most loyal Englishman.) 

41. Stephen Ward sought tp use Sir Godfrey as a means of getting 
information for Captain Ivanov from the Foreign Office about British 
intentions over disarmament and over Berlin. Sir Godfrey did see the Foreign 
Office, and indeed the Foreign Secretary; and he wrote three letters to Captain 
Ivanov about the Berlin matter and the Oder-Neisse line. But he was careful 
to submit the draft of these letters to the Foreign Office and get them approved 
before he sent them. (Lord Home went So far as to warn Sir Godfrey not to 
see Captain Ivanov, but Sir Godfrey felt that as a Member of Parliament he 
must be free to talk to him.) Stephen Ward did not rest there. He wanted to 
meet Sir Harold Caccia. the Permanent Under-Secretary of State at the 
Foreign Office: and on Sth April. 1962, Sir Godfrey arranged a luncheon 
where Stephen Ward met Sir Harold. Stephen Ward offered to put Sir Harold 
in direct touch with Captain Ivanov but Sir Harold declined the offer. The 
Foreign Office were under no illusions as to Stephen Want 

(u) Tlie Cobaa Crifit jSl^ 

42. In late October, 1962, there was the Cuban crisis whflttSb Rmsaan 
ships were heading towards Cuba with nuclear weapons. Stephm «M played 
a very active part at this juncture. He seems to have been acting on the 


gQggffStioii of Captain Ivanov. Stepbeo Wafd'i point »is that Hlm^^O fM 
Government looked to the United Kingdom as the only hope o( Mgtet ion 

in this crisis: and that the United Kingdom should call a sominit iiiiw|h ii 

to resolve it Stephen Ward, on 24th October, 1962. telephoned tih* PNiB 
Office and said that Lord Astor had recommended him to contact Sfrnwoid 
Caccia: and be put forward the suggestion of a summit conference. On 
25th October. 1962, he got Sir Godfrey Nicholson to meet Captain Ivanov 
and then, at Captain Ivanov*s request, to go to the Foreign Office with the 
same proposal. Stephen Ward afterwards himself telephoned to the Foreign 
Office about it On the same day he got Lord Astor to speak to Lord Arran. 
Lord Astof told Lord Arran that there svas a Russian official (no doubt it was 
Captain Ivanov) who was seeking to pass information of an urgent nature to 
the British Government Two days later, on 27th October. 1962, Stephen Ward 
took Captain Ivanov to Lord Arran's house. Captain Ivanov told Lord Arran 
that he wished to convey a message to the British Government by indirect 
means asking them to call a summit conference in London forthwith. He 
maintained that Mr. Khrushchev would accept the invitation with alacrity, 
and thus the United Kingdom would break the deadlock. Lord Arran suspected 
that this was an attempt to drive a wedge between the United Kingdom and 
the Americans. He reported it both to the Foreign Office and to Admiralty 
House. ^ 

43. All these efforts by Stephen Ward failed. It so happened that on 
Sunday, 28th October, 1962, there was another party at Cliveden. Lord Astor^s 
guests included Lord Arran. Stephen Ward and Captain Ivanov came up to the 
house. While they were there news came through over the broadcast that the 
Russian ships had turned bade from Cuba. Ckptain Ivanov could not. indeed, 
did not. conceal his anger and discomfiture. AH the guests noticed it 

44. Looking back on the incident. Stephen Ward told me that he felt at 
the time that he was doing something momentous, but afterwards he realised 
that it was of little real significance. I accept that Stephen Ward's activities, 
although misconceived and misdirected, were not deliberately mischievous, 
and I am glad to say that over this critiod period the efforts of Stephen Ward 
and Captain Ivanov did not have the slightest effect on any of the people whom 
they approached—except to make everyone more suspicious of them than ever. 

(Ui) NuM Droppins 

45. Shortly after the Cuban crisis, on 31st October. 1962. there was an 
incident which will illustrate the way in which Stephen Ward was apt to drop 
names of well-known people which led to unfounded rumours about them. In 
the evening of 31st October. 1962. Mr. William S. Shepherd. M.P.. went to 
Stephen Ward's house. He found, as he says. Captain Ivanov there, Christine 
Keeler. and also Marilyn Rioe-Davies. (She y/zs another of the |^ whom 
Stephen Ward found and she was currently living in his house.) Tkt0ti not 
know that Mr. Shepherd was a Member of Parliament The convemtttiMed 
to the Cuban crisis. Mr. Shepherd said it was a victory for Ike Aniens. 
CapUin Ivanov became very angry. When Kffr. Shepherd got up to |ulaflM 
Ward said, referring to C^aptain Ivanov and himself. ** we must m^wo. We 
are going to have dinner with Iain Macleod.^'—which Mr. Shepherd l^oni^t 
Was an extraordinary thing. This sras a typical distortion of the truth bf 
Stephen Ward. They were not going to have dinnec with Mr. Madeod at aU. 

46. The fact was tbat on 3lst October, 1962. then wui § fvtjr ■< - 
Mr. and Mn. Macleod*s flat at 36. Sloaoe Court West Slephoi iPaid and 

Captain ivanov simply " gBie-crashed inere if DO otoef iraaif ior it li 
yfBs a party for young people all aged about !8 or 19. On tbe moaaBg of the 
party one of the young invited guests (who evidently knew SCeplwa Ward) 
telephoned and asked if he could bring along Stephen Ward and a friend of 
his. He had evidently been put up to this by Stephen Ward. The Macleods 
did not know anything about Stephen Ward but assumed it was all right and 
said " Yes **. Stephen Ward came rather late to the party and brought with 
him Captain Ivanov. They did not stay long. They did not meet Mr. laia 
Macleod at all. He was in the House of Commons and did not attend the 
party. Mrs. Macleod came in towards the end of the party and saw these two 
men who were much older than anyone else. She spoke a wOfd Of two io 
Stephen Ward (whom she did not know) but did not speak to Captain Ivanov. 
The two only stayed a few minutes and then left. None of the Macleod family 
have s«en or beard d either of them again. Mrs. Macleod told Mr. Madeod 
next day about it 

47. Mr. Shepherd was so suspicious that, a day or two later, he took 
the opportunity of mentioning the matter to Mr. Macleod. He said that 
Stephen Ward had been giving the impression that he had been invited to 
Mr. Macleod's flat and knew him. Mr. Macleod explained to Mr. Shepherd 
just what had happened and spoke to the Foreign^ Seoetary (Lord Home) 
about it and wrote a letter putting it on record, i be horeign Secretary of 
course knew a good deal about Stephen Ward by this time. 

48. It is quite obvious now that Stephen Ward was seeking an 
opportunity for Captain Ivanov to meet Mr. Macleod and others, to glean. 
I suppose, any information he could, for the Russians, It is equally obvious 
that he got nothing. 

(iv) A Letter to Mr. Wilson, M J. 

49. On the 7th November, 1962, Ward followed up his activities during 
the Cuban crisis by reporting them to Mr. Harold Wilson, MJ*., the Leader 
of 'the Opposition. He wrote saying that on Friday. 26th October, an offer 
was made by the Russians to the Foreign Office for a summit conference. 
"I can vouch for the authenticity of this**, he said, "since I was tha 
intermediary Mr. Wilson did not think this letter at the time to be of any 
account and sent a non-commituU reply. 

5a On 26th December, 1962, Lord and Lady Ednam held a dinner party 
to which a high official of the Foreign Office and his wife were invited, 
Stephen Ward and Captain Ivanov were present too, at the dinner party. 
They Srought up the Nassau Conference and the possibility of Gennany 
ftcnuirisg nuclear weapons. But the Foreign Office official gave nothing 

SI. Thus ends the known activities of Ward on behalf of %t Russians* 
He was without doubt a Communist sympadiiser, and to mOH Older the 
influence of Ivanov that he was a potential danger. But this mf kaown to 
the Security Service and they had passed it on to the peopia lib mittered. 
particuiariy the Foreign Office, and any Ministers who migbt come into 
contact with him. I see no failure of the Security Service over this period, 
I will set oat the details of dwir wtxk later. 


CHAPTER IV ■ --^..r » .L- - -^-Jfi^- 

52. Whilst Stephen Ward was thus engaging himself busily duiing 19ti2 
in aid of Ivanov and the Russians he had continued his vicious sexual 
activities. He wanted a coloured girl and got Christine Kcelcr to get him one. 
In October. 1961. he took her to the Rio CaK in the Westboumc Park Road. 
There were coloured people there. Some were smokers of " reefers that is. 
drugged cigarettes, and were engaged in trafficking in Indian hemp. She here 
met * Lucky * Gordon for the first time. She asked him, " Can I have some 
weed? " and he let her have 10 shilling*s worth. He wanted to see her again. 
She said. "I can only see you if you bring your sister for my brother 
(meaning a coloured girl for Stephen Ward). She gave him her telephone 
number. And thus she started her association with coloured men. Some 
time later she left Stephen Ward and went to live with this man * Lucky' 
Gordon. Later she took up a sunilar association with another one call«i 
John Edgecombe. Each of these seems to have considered her to be his 
property. This led to extreme jealousy which resulted in violence. 

0) The SbuUng 

53. On 27tili-28th October. 1962, ChristiDe Keeler was with Edgecombe 
at an " All Nighters Qub" in Wardour Street, W. L. in the early hours of 
the morning. * Lucky ' Gordon arrived and there was an argument between 
the two men about her. It flared up into an affray in which 'Lucky* 
Gordon's face was slashed, necessitating 17 stitches. The police sought to 
arrest John Edgecombe and charge him with an assault, but he disappeared. 
He went to Brentford, and Christine Keeler went to live with him there. 
Meanwhile Stephen Ward had found' another girl to live with him in place 
of Christine Keeler. He got Marilyn Rice-Davies to live with him in 
17, Wimpolc Mews. 

(ii) The ShootiBg 

54. Early in December. 1962. Christine Keeler left John Edgecombe. He 
determined to get her back if he could. On 14th December. 1962, she went to 
17, Wimpole Mews, where she was visiting Marilyn Rice-Davies. At about 
1 p.m. John Edgecombe arrived in a mini-cab. He told the driver to wait 
Marilyn Rice-Davies looked out of the window. John Edgecombe asked for 
Christine Keeler. Marilyn Rice-Davies said she was not in. He kept on ringing 
the bell. Aftkr a while Christine Keeler put her head out of the window and 
told him to go away. He charged at the door to try and break it open. It 
withstood the charge. He then pulled out an automatic pistol aiMl fved 
shots at the lock on the front door. Three or four shots. Once moft f 
upstairs was opened. He pointed the pistol in that direction and 
Only a shot or two this time, for he had come to the end of hb i 
He went back to the mini-cab and got the driver of the mini-cij 
waiting) to drive him back to Brentford. The police caught up w^lll 
and he was arrested. He was charged, not only with this shoofting on 
14th December. 1962, but also with the slashing of * Lucky' Qoidoa on 
27th October, 1962. 


55. MeanwhOo. bowever. fbft shooting had attnctod tba i H w rf i ni oC tba 
aeigUMudwod. One oC the |^ had tekphooed Stepiwii Wtss4 ^Mi anEgoy 
in nearby Devoosbire Stteet and gave htm a niamag comnMato^w^rihat was 
happening. He heaid the shooting over the telephone; Ha m^^kmtd the 
police. Wireless messages were sent out from the police ttatiofi fllf #e news- 
papermen arrived in the Mews before the police. Maybe they fittewd la to the 
messages. The Mews was filled widi press and polioe. The poiiee took Ih^ 
girls to the police station and took statements bom tbem as to the sfaootiqg. 
The station was besieged by the press bat eventually the girls got away and 
went to a flat which CSiristine Keekr had taken at 63. Great Cumberland 

56. After they got back to the flat Christine Kccler telephoned Mr. 
Michael Eddowes. (He was a retired solicitor who was a firiend and patient 
of Stefdten Ward and had seen a good deal (rf him at this time. He had 
befriended Christine Keeler and had taken her to see her mother once or 
twice.) Mr. Eddowes went round to see her. She told him of the shooting. 
He already knew from Stephen Ward something of her relations with Captain 
Ivanov and Mr. Fiofumo, and he asked her about thenL He was most 
interested and subsequently noted it down in writing, and in March he reported 
it to the police. He followed it up by employing an ex-member of the 
Metropolitan Police to act as detective on his behalf to gather information. 

(iii) TM Expected Flnt Wedi ol February 

57. It was quite plain that Christine Keeler would be an important 
witness in the case against John Edgecombe, both with regard to the slashing 
of * Lucky* Gordoo oa 27di October, 1962, and also the diooting on 
14th December, 1962. John Edgecombe was remanded in custody from time 
to time and the evidence was not taken by the magistrate until the 16th and 
17th January, 1963. Christine Keeler attended the magistrate's hearings 
quite voluntarily and gave evidence for the prosecution. John Edgecombe was 
committed for trial at the Old Bailey. His trial was expected to be early in 

'58. On Sunday, the 3rd February. 1963. the News of the World 
published a laige picture of Christine Keeler. in a seductive pose, with 
nothing on except the slightest of swimming garbs, and the words alongside, 
"Model in shots case. Attractive Christine Keeler, a 20-ycar-old London 
model, features in a case at the Old Bailey this week in whidi a man is 
accused of shooting at her with intent to murder. He is a 30-year-oId West 
Indian. John Edgecombe, of Brentford. Middlesex.** I mention this 
photograph because most people seeing it would readOy infer the avocation 
of Christine Keeler. 

59. The trial of John Edgecombe did not however, taka that week. 
The driver of the mini-cab was taken ill. On Friday. 8th l% l| iMuy . 1963. 
a medical certificate was received by die police that he W||jattble to 
attend the Court, and it was decided to ^ty for an adjomAML It was 
adjourned until March. It came on for trial on 14th Mank, bat by 
that time Christine Keeler had disappeared. Meanwhile, ho w if i t, maA had 
b^pened. The shooting had been given much notice tn dw newspapen. 
Many saw that a stoiy might emerge of much Interest It did. 


60. On thfr veiy night of the shooting Ouistioe Keeier toU ac w^M^g 
of her story to Mr. Midtad Eddow^ but it does not seem to htm 
publicity through him. She toM it later in dieks where it was soon takii up. 

(i) She tdls b to Mf. John Lewk 

61. About nine days after the shooting, on 23rd December. 1962, there 
was a party in a girFs tlat in Rossmore Court. Christine Keeier went there 
with Paul Mann. John Lewis, fonncriy a Member of Parliament, went to 
the party with a friend. In the course of conversation the shooting was 
discussed. Stephen Ward's name was mentioned: and at once old memories 
revived. John Lewis and Stephen Ward had been engaged actively in f 
HtigatioD in 1954 and 1955 and there was no love lost between them. 
Christine Keeter said how fearfU she was of being called as a witness: 
John Lewis said she must be represented in court and recommended her to 
a solicitor. He was most interested in her story and over the next two or three 
weeks made a point of seeing her and obtaining more details. She told him 
of her affair with Mr. Profumo and of the letters he had written to her. She 
also told him that Stephen Msad asked her to obtain information from 
Mr. Profumo as to the date when the Americans would deliver atom bombs 
to Germany. 

62. John Lewis was at once alive to the importance of the matter from 
the security point of view. He told Mr. George Wigg, M.P., about it. And 
from that time onwards he kept Mr. Wigg fully informed of every 
development. They had conversations almost daily. John Lewis was so 
mterested that he, in March, 1963, got his own agent to investigate in the 
person of a journalist who spent much of his time in Stephen Ward's fiat. 

(ii) She teUs Jt to flie Prev 

63. Next on the scene (they had been hovering near all the time) came 
the press. Christine Keeier told her story to Paul Mann. Now Paul Mann was 
a young man aged 26. He had been at the Cliveden week-end. He was at 
this time (December. 1962) in a shirt business in Manchester, but often came 
down to London at week-ends. He also seems to have friends in journalism. 
He was friendly both with Stephen Ward and Christine Keeier. Another 
acquaintance of Christine Keeler*s was a woman called Nina Gadd who 
was a free -lance journalist. It appears to have been indirectly through these 
two that her story achieved notice. They advised her that there were 
newspapers who would buy it. Only two possible buyers were mentioned to 
her. The Neivs of the World and the Sunday Pictorial. She got in touch with 
both and tried to see who would pay her most 

64. Christine played off one agamst the other. When the Sunday Bdorial 
offered her £1,000, she went straight to the News of the World ttked 
them to increase it. Their representative said, ** I will see you to t haj ^ vtt . I 
will not join in any Dutch auction So the Sunday Pictorial aopMM. 
On 22nd January. 1963. she went to the office of the Sunday PietmM tmd 


cigoed a conditional cootiact to sell them her ftoty for £ljOOO. of wfaidi 
£200 was to be paid down and the balance of £800 on con^letioa. She 
outlined her story and gave it colour by relating her doable fib— with rich 
men in high places and coloured men in low. She told tbem of Wm idationa 
with Mr. Profumo and with Captain Ivanov. She produced 11% |i»CQmo't 
letter of 9th August, 1961 (the 'Darling* letter), ia proof Ae waa 
telling the truth. The newspaper had it photographed and put Ull tte safe. 

65. Over the next few days the newspaper men took dowt tw story 
in detail and she then told the reporters (what she had not told tbem at fint) 
that Stephen Ward had asked her to obtain bom Mr. Frofumo infonnation 
as to when the Americans were going to give nudear weapons to Oermany. 
The newspaper reporters saw how greatly tbe ** spy ** interest heightened the 

(iii) It b set down In writing 

66. The reporters of the Sunday Pictorial prepared a proof of her story. 
She signed every page as correct on 8th February. 1963. It is the drst signed 
statement she gave to anyone. (The police did not get a signed statement 
until 4!h April, 1963.) It is on that account instructive to see how she put it 
It was in fact never published, but this is how it ran: 

" Men arc such fools. But I like tbem. I have always liked them. 

Unfortunatcly, the combination of these things has led me into a lot 
of trouble and may even have risked the security of this country. It 
certainly could have been hanoful to the oountiy. 

You see. one man who was foolish enough and irresponsible enough 
to have an affair with me was a Cabinet Minister, a member of Her 
Majesty's Government 

And at the same time I was having an affair with another man->« 
Russian diplomat 

If that Russian or anyone else had placed a tape recorder or cine 
camera or both in some iudden place in my bedroom it woukl have been 
very embarrassing for the Minister, to say Che least 

In fact it would have Ifeft him open to the worst possible kind of 
blackmail— the blackmail of a spy. 

I am not suggesting that he really would have given up State secrets 
' to avoid a scandal. He might have been tough and refused. 

But I do believe that any man in his position— particularly a married 
man— is both unwise and irresponsible to have an affair with some 
unknown girl like me. 

More especially so in this case because this Minister has such 
knowledge of the military affairs of the Western world that he would 
be one of the most valuable men in the world for the Russians to have 
hactin their power. 

He is. in fact the Secretary of State for War. Mr. John Profumo. 

I believe now that a man in his position should not 
like me. I suppose even Cabinet Ministers are only hi 
they should curb their feelings when they take on the 

One might think that as a politician he would havv 
discreet in the afoir. John ^ofumo was not It it tme 

me out much, but he did take me to his own home white his wife was 
away. And he did write letters to me.' - ; . i. 

One might also thinlc that those responsible for State tteaatf^KtM 
keep some sort of watch on men who hold as many secrets as liiibjbldt. 

Yet if that happened he would never have been abk tC) oam 
see me at the fiat where I was being visited by the Russian. If V 

And. believe me. the Russian was a man who would be very niiicli 
aware of the value of the secrets which Pcofamo knew. He was not « 

He was. in fact, a naval captain. Captain Eugene Ivanov. 

Of course, at the time I did not realise the sinister implications behind 
my two affairs. I was only 19 and knew nothing of politics or inteisatiooal 
matters. I was not interested. 

I did not realise ttien'that blackmail is one of the Russians* favourite 
weapons when they are trying to recruit traitors or discover secret 
information. ' ' ' • ^ 

I am sure that Jack Profumo would riot have allowed his harmless 
affair with, me to be used as a lever to prise' secrets from him. But 
weaker man in his position might have allowed it to hiappen. 

At the time, however. I saw no danger in the situation. It just seemed 
funny to me that I should be seeing the two men, sometimes on (be same 
day. One might leave my flat only a few minutes before the other arrived. 

I did find it worrying when somebne asked mc to try to get from 
Profumo the answer to a certain question. 

That question was; 'When, if ever, are the Americans going to give 
nuclear weapons to Germany?* 

I am not prepared to say in public who asked me to find out the 
answer to that question. I am prepared to give it to the security officials. 
In fact. I believe now that I have a duty to do so.** 

(iv) She teDs the PoUcc 

67. On 26th January, 1963. Detective-Sergeant Burrows of the 
Marylebone Police Station called on Christine Keeler to serve her with 
notice to attend the trial of John Edgecombe. It was only four days after 
she had signed her conditional contract with the Sunday Pictorial, She then 
told the Detective-Sergeant in brief outline the self-same story as she told 
the newspaper. This needs separate treatment and I will deal with it ia 
the next Chapter, . . 

(v) Those who knew 

68. By the end of January. 1963. therefore, Christine Keeler had told 
her story to these people: 

U) Mr. John Lewis and through hiin Mr, George Wigg, IIF;;, j| 

(2) The newspapers, particularly the News of the. World and ttm JtonfiU 
Pictorial: ^ - - ... / i,^ iqij/. 

(3) The police through Detective-Sergeant Burrows: • ' > ' ' 

(4) The Security Service got to know of her story about (his time too. 

69. Very shortly afterwards it also came to the kDowtodge «£ Ame at 
Admiralty House. This I win relate later. « j ; : : U ; A 

(vi) CfeptalB Itwot leaTca - . ■ ^ 

70. Steph^i Ward did sot know at first of all this activity % Cbristine 
Keeler. He had quarrelled with her for the time being and did not Imow 
that she had gone to the newspapers. He bad been turned out of hit home 
at 17, )^lmpole Mews, because he could not pay the rent and had gone to 
a fiat in Bryanston Mews formerly belonging to Peter Rachman. On 
.16di January. 1963. he told a journalist all he knew about the shooting and 
said he had succeeded in keeping out of it and hoped the whole thing would 
blow over. But it did not. On 18th January, 1963. he saw Captain Ivanov. 
and it may be presumed that Capuin Ivanov took alarm. It seems as if it 
was what is called a ** tip-oS **. Captain Ivanov left England on 29th January, 
1963. much earlier than expected. 

(vii) Stepfaea Ward's alam 

71. The crisis broke upon Stephen Ward on 26th January. 1963, when a 
journalist went to see him and told him that he had been in contact with the 
giris and ** they are i^w with the Sunday Pictorial**. This was the signal for 
intensive activity by Stephen Ward. He did all he could to stop the pubHcation. 
On Sunday. 27th January, he went to the private house of bis CounseK*) and 
had some discussion wiUi him. 

72. On Monday. 28th Januaiy. he telephoned to Lord Astor and asked 
him to meet him on a vety. veiy utgeat matter at the chambers of his Counsel : 
and both he and Lord Astor went to CounseVs chambers. Lord Astor did 
not stay long but arranged to instruct his own solicitor that afternoon (which 
he did). Stephen Ward stayed and told the problem to his Counsel : namely, 
that the trial of John Edgecombe was expected the next week, that Christine 
Keeler was to be called as a witness and might bring into her evidence the 
names of Stephen Ward and Mr. Profumo; and that she had sold her story to 
the Sunday Pictorial and it might appear as soon as the trial was concluded. 
Stephen Waid*s Counsel went to see the Solicitor-General and told him. The 
Solicitor-General passed it on to the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General 
wrote a note to Mr. Profumo and asked him to come and see him. 

73. Meanwhile, in the afternoon of the same day. Lord Astor saw his 
solicitor: and at 5.30 p.m. Lord Astor went to see Mr. Profumo and told 
him of the danger. Mr. Profumo at once got into touch with the Head of the 
Security Service and asked him to come and see him. The Head of the 
Security Service got the impression that Mr. Profumo hoped he would get a 
D notice issued or something to stop publication — ^but bis hopes were is vaio. 

74. ^ Over the next few days there was much going on— so much so that 
I must'divide it into sections so as to show what was done by the police, the 
lawyers, and the Ministers of the Crown. But there were also two meetutgs 
of the principals. Mr. Profumo wanted to know more about it «fl. He and 
Stephen Ward had lunch together with Lord Astor in Lord M^tu London 
house. Then Mr. Profumo wanted " to get a Int man out o( mm*' wd he 
met him at the Dorchester Hotd. Stephen Ward told him tfie tmaptpet had 
a letter which started " Darling ** and ended ** Love J.**. 

(■) Mr. Rees-DaviBs. M.P. 


CHAPTER VI ' ^a- ^r^:^ 


(i) The OrdiMoy PoUce Fom 

75. No one can anderstaod the actkms ot Hbe police in the Pirofuma 
affair unless it is realised that their primary task is to maintain law and 
order:, in particular it is their duty to enforce the aiminal law. and in this 
respect they are completely independent of the Home Office. It is no part of 
their duty to pry into the private lives of anyone, be it a Minister of the 
Oown or the humblest citizen. And if , in the course of their inquiries, they 
come across discreditable incidents in private fives (not amounting to a 
criminai offence) it is no part of their duty to report it to anyone. We are not 
yet a " police state Even if they come across discreditable incidents in the 
life of a Minister, they are not to report it^--save only if it appears that the 
security of the bountiy may be endangered, when they should report it to the 
Security Service. < 

(ii) Special Branch • - 

76. So much for what I may call the ordinary police force. There is 
also the * Special Branch * of the Metropolitan Police. This was formed in 
1886 to deal with Irish Republican activity. From that time it has developed 
so that it$ main activities are as follows: 

(1) It is concerned with subversive or terrorist organisations. So one of 
its duties is to obtain information re^rdmg diem and r»ss it to the 
Security Service. 

(2) It is also concerned with offences against the security of the State, 
such as treason, espionage, offences against the OfiEk^ial Secrets Act 
and the Public Order Act If the Security Service, for instance, detect 
a spy. they collect the information and material about the case and 
then pass it to Special Branch. The Special Branch make any 
necessary searches or anests, and prepare the case for triaL Conversely, 
if Special Branch comes across material which points to a risk to 
national security, they pass it to the Security Service for their 

(3) It keeps watch on seaports and airports for criminals and other 
dangerous persons: makes inquiries into aliens: and so forth. 

77. There is very close co-operation between the Special Branch and 
the Security Service. They work togettker in harmony and each has the fullest 
coofidence in the otlnr. 

(iii) The Workhig of Am Orfinaiy PoiiM , . /f^ , 

78. The various cases that figure in the Profumo affair iflmjii^fwy 
clearly the wotlring of the ordinary police. In the £dgecomb€ ' mhi 
ordinary police force handled it in the accustomed manner. On behig 
informed of the shootiqg; they went' at once to the soene^ made invesdgUldiB. 
then an a rest, afterwards took statements, and conducted the case ri^t 


through to triat In the Cordon case, too, as soon as the atta^^'Sferittioe 
Keelet was reported, they acted in a similar manner. Ltkewte Upl flhe Ward 
cue. This came to their notice throng anonymous coiiiiiHiniiraHniii They 
looked Into it to sec if there was anyOiqg to investigate: aad^^rilm there . 
IWBS, they took statements which eventually disclosed a caao afunt him. as 
a result <tf which they arrested him and conducted die case to triaL 

79. The important point for present purposes is. however, this: In the 
course of the conduct of the Edgecombe case, the ordinary police ofllcetB 
came across information which might have a security significanoe and the 
question is whether it was handled properly by them, or by Special Bnndi. 
or, later on. by the Security Service. 

(iv) ' 

80. On Saturday, 26th January. 1963. Detective-Sergeant Burrows of 
the Maiylebonc Police Station went to warn Christine Kecler and Marilyn 
Rice^Davies that they were required to attend at the Central Crimmal Court 
at the trial of John Edgecombe. He served recognisance notices on them 
and then Christine Keeler voluntarily made a statement to him (I give it 
from the note he made and in the very form he reported it to his superiors): 

** She said that Doctor Ward was a procurer of women for gentlemen 
in high places and was sexually perverted: that he had a country 
cottage at Cliveden to which some of these women were taken to meet 
important men — the cottage was on the estate of Lord Astor; that he 
had introduced her to Mr. John Profumo and that she had had an 
association with him; that Mr. Profumo had written a number of letters 
to her on War Gmcc DOtepaper and that she was still in possession of 
one of these letters which was being considered for publication in the 
Sunday Pictorial to whom she had sold her life story for £1.000. She also 
said that on one occasion when she was going to meet Mr. Profumo. 
Ward had asked her to discover from him the date on which certain 
atomic secrets were to be handed to West Germany by the Americana. 
' and that this was at the time of the Cuban crisis. She also said that she 
had been introduced by Ward to the Naval Attach^ of the Soviet Embassy 
and had met him on a number of occasions.** 

81. It is to be noticed that that statement of Christine Kcclcr contains 
In concise form the very gist of all the important matters — ^thc procurement 
of women by Stephen Ward — the association of Mr. Profumo with Christine 
Keeler— the request for information about atomic secrets — and the Ivanov 

(v) A Meeting is Amaged 

82. Detective-Sergeant Burrows reported it to his 
Inspector Anning. who thought it was outside the field of < 
for the Special Branch. So he telephoned to Detective-Ini_ 
Special Branch. He thought it of connderabte secu^ -^s™^ 
thought that Christine Keeler should be seen by Spedd MiKVB arranged 
a meeting for Detective-Sergeant Burrows and himself to see her. Whiilst he 
was making inquiries Christine Keeler told the police at Mv]^bone tfiat 
she believed that Waid. in an endeavDar to ''have her p«t aw^r". w»i 


have the assistance of an officer conversant wwn . * % w 
suggestion). , . 

(vi) Ifc* Meeliig li Cttcelted 

It was most unfortunkte that this meeting was never held. Christine 

SXj'^iaTl^ SK"r6.Tuj.« 4* April.1963. when in,«iH« 
w^ "ingi»de into the <;ase against Stephen 

M The first question arises, therefore, why was the meeting not teW on 

«S«h offi^)!Jf^ O^P^^y Commander, it decided 

toTSe°S^stTrKe.ler and Stephen Ward should be seen by offi^ 
SrtLcrtotol Investigation Department: and that anything coming to hght 
K- K iLTTinWMt to Six«aalBranch. should be brought to their notice. 
^^^onsTuence^fa dS^t^ Deploy Commander sent out a message 
SnSmS the m«trr^ ^ afternoon of Friday. 1st Februanr- 

No r«^n was given tJ the Marylebone office^ K.*» l-f 
D^ttctive-S«geanl BuSows accordingly tetejAoned ChnstiM Keeler and sad 
teSd^nS^p tl» appointment that afternoon, but would contact her .gam 
at some future date. 

85 The second question arises, yhy was Christine Keeler not seen at aU 
at to tin^! ^eveS by officers of the Crimi^l ^^-^^^^^^^^^ 
TTuTwas the decision of a Chief Superintendent of the Department The 
Jmi^omm^ of Special Branch told me that he made it clear that he 
cSe Keeler to be seen, but the Chief Superintendent of the 
?^Sl[?rvXti^ department told me tha* .the message, as it r«ched hmj 
Vw^Tthat Stephen Ward was to be seen, but nothing was said, he told^c. about 
^Lg <^4e Keeler. THere must have been 

on tUs point. Arrangements were in fact only made for Stephen ^» » ^ 
^n^^PPoinS was made for Stephen Ward to be a^^Scodj^ 
m Saturdayr2tid Febmaiy. 1963. by a Drug Squad official but Wai^ ao^ 
keep the appointment In consequence on Monday. 4th February. « tte 
Chief Superintendent decided not to n»ke another aPIJ»»°'^f ^^^^ 
addition, on the same day he was asked by Special Branchwhether headed 
to have Christine Keeler seen, and he said he did not This was. I Aii*. an 
unfortunate decision: for it meant that she jnis not swn by '^^X 5^ 
at all at that time. There must have been another failure m co-ordmation at 


thii point The dedsioa 9ms noocded in tiiis minute by a SufKcmtendent pf 
SpecLiI Bvandi: .• ,•:. .' ■:■:„ ••, ,...;■< . i • i' 

The Chief Supermteadeot of Oifflinal Investigatioa doct Jit ptopotc 
making another appointment (for Ward), nor does he iMit to have 
Miss Keder seea. I told the Chief Superintendent that Hat «#f agcceaUe 
to Special Branch and we are not asking him to take any &tM actioo.** 

86. It is q[uite plain from this last sentence that the Superintendent of 
Special Branch did not regard it as important to see Christine Keeler. He 
told me that he thought the crime interest was greater than any secority 
risk. Accepting this view, nevertheless in view of Christine Keelcr*s statement 
to Detective-Sergeant Burrows it does appear that there was a security 
interest iriiich should have been watched: and the Deputy Commander of 
Spedal Branch certainly intended her to be seen. 

(vii) Stephen Ward tdb Ac PoHcn 

87. So much for Christine Keeler's statement. There was a statement 
by Stephen Ward at this time which was also of importance. On 4tb February, 
1963, at 6.20 pjn.. Stephen Ward himself telephoned to the Marylebone Lane 
Station and said that two photographs had been stolen from him. They were 
photographs taken at the swimming pool at Cliveden. One was taken by 
Mr. Profimio and showed Stephen Ward with three girls, one of whom was 
Christine Keeler. Mr. Profumo had written on it ** The new Cliveden Set. * J.*." 
The other was taken by someone else showing Mr. Profumo with two 
gu-ls. one of whom was Christine Keeler. The Marylebone officers asked him 
to come to the station and he did so on 5th February. 1963. Stephen Ward 
said he thought Paul Mann had stolen the photographs to sell. He also made 
this statement (I give it from the note made by the officer as it was 
reported to his superior): 

Dr. Ward said that, if this matter, including the association between 
Mr. Profumo and Miss Keeler. became public, it might very well 'briing 
. down * the Government He also added that he had no personal liking for 
this Government but would not like to see it go out of ofiSce in this 
way. He also said that he was aware that Miss Keeler had sold her 
'life story to the Sunday Pictorial newspaper and that a number of names 
would be mentioned. Ward also said that he was a close friend of the 
Naval Attach^ of the Soviet Embassy, who frequently visited him and 
who was known in diplomatic circles as *Foxface*. He produced a 
photograph which he said had been taken at an official Iron Curtain 
party and in it he appeared standing alongside * Foxface *. He also said 
he had mentioned the matter to a member of M J. 5 " 

88. 'It is to be noticed, too. that this statement of Stephen Ward's 
contained direct reference to two important matters->the assodation of 
Mr. Profumo and Christine Keeler. and Stephen Wanff friprfihip for 
Ivanov. ^ ■ 

(viii) He FoUce teU the Security Scrrict : # 

89. We have at this point, therefore, two important ftalMllpIl to the 
police— one by Chrlsthis Keder on 2601 lanoaiy. 1963. and ii «NlHr by 
Stephen Waid on 5fh Febniaiy. 1963. The Ma^lebooe offloen embodied 


these In a written teport dated 5th February, 1963. OTh^ were in the vciy 
*tenn» I have quoted.) It was a pity that Oiristme Keclcr had not been <eea 
aa intended: f(«r if the liad been aeen. die might well have filled in nodi 
important detail <sach as the detcriptioti of Mr. Frofaiiio't hoaae. or tba 
miscot on the car) which would have c o rrobo ra ted her story* and she a0||it 
have thrown light oo Stephen Ward** activida. It is a pity, too, diat 
Stephen Ward was not seen by officers of Scotland Yard as intead«d|^% te 
a detailed statement from him at that time might (la^ had iOfipHt 
consequences. ' . \ 

90. But nevtftheless the report itself of the Marylebone officer gali ifte 
gist of all the important matters. It may be asked, what did Spedal Braadl 
do about this important report? They did the correct fliiog. They took H 
along to the Security Service. The report reached Special Branch on Thursday. 
7th February, 1963. and was considered by the Commander himself. He at 
once went and saw a sfcnior officer of the Security Service. He took a copy 
of the report and left it with him. He asked two pertinent questions : 

(a) Was there any security intelligence aspect which should influence 
Criminai Invesugatida I>cpartsacai action? The Security Officer 
said. No. 

ib) Did any duty, lie on Scotland Yard to ensure that Mr. Profumo was 
aware of the, likelihood of publicity? The Security 0£5cer said that 
Mr. Profumo was aware of it - 

91. The Commander went back and drew up this minute : 

" The facts given in (the report) were already known to (the Security 
Service) in broad outline. Their principal interest is, of course, the 
Russian diplcmat, whose identity is knows to them and in whose 
activities they are taking an interest Officially they are not concerned 
with the Profumo aspect, but they do know that Profumo is aware of 
the position and that such action as is possible is being taken by his 
solicitors with the newspaper. They believe it to be true that Profumo 
has told the Prime Minister of the matter but they do not know that for 

I think it wise for us to stay out of this business and (the Security 
Service) agree." 

92. 'The upshot of it all is that the Marylebone officers were aware of 
the security and political importance of Christine Kecler*s and Stephen 
Ward's statements, and reported them to Special Branch. No possible 
criticism can be made of the Marylebone officers. But the Crimhial 
Investigation Department and Special Branch did. I think, make an error 
in not following up these reports by seeing Christine Keekr. or making sure 
she was seen, or by seeing Stephen Ward. This eiror was due to an error 
in co-ordination, for whicb no one individual can be blamed. But allowing 
for this ertdt, the gist of the infonnatioii was passed on by Special Branch 
to the Securi^ Service. And thenceforward the cesponsilalil^ lor furllier 
action rested with the Securi^ Service. I win deal wiUi this wfaeD I < 
the operation of the Security Service. 

29 i 

93. It may be asked why did not the police themsdvet these 
matters to the Home Secretacy. The answer is. I think, thia: In # as if 
involved a security matter they fulfilled their duty by reportiii|| it to the 
Special Branch. In so far as it involved private morals it would sot be for 

them to report it to anyone. It would be contrary to our way of tfiinkiiis that 
police should be expected to report to the Home Secretary, or indeed to the 
Prime Minister, anything they happen incidentally to discover affecting the 
moral character or behaviour of any individual, including even a Minister 
of the Crown. 


' :r ' CHAPTER VU 


(i) Distmbing Fact! 

94. No one ^ undcrstaiiu what happened at this time isslcss he realises 
the extreme anxiety felt by Stephen Ward, Mr. Profumo and, I may add. Lord 
Astor. over the critical 10 days, Monday. 28th Januaiy. 1963-Wcdnesday. 
6th February^ 1963. They were very anxious that nothing should be disclosed 
prejudicial to their good names. Each instructed lawyers to protect his interests. 
And, as it happened, the main burden was borne by Stephen Ward's 
Counsel(') and by Mr. Profumo's soUcitoTs.(*) By Friday, 1st Febniaiy, 1963, 
they had discovered these disturbing facts: 

(1) They got to know Christine Keelei had signed a conditional cootract 
to sell her story to die Sunday Pictorial for £1,000. of which £200 was 
paid down: but they did not icnow what her story contained. In 
particular they did not know what she bad told the newspaper about 
Stephen Ward, Mr. Profumo or Lord Astor. They got to know that 
arrangements had been made for her to sign the proofs of her story 
early in the week beginning Monday. 4th February, and also for her 
to be accommodated, at the expense of the newspaper, in a flat at The 
White House, Albany Street. Once the proofs were signed by her as 
correct, the newspaper would be free to publish the article without 
fear of any libel action by her. though they would, of course, be liable 
to libel actions if they made (fefamatory statements which were untrue 
about anyone else. 

(2) They got to know that the case of John Edgecombe was in the list 
for trial at the Session at the Central Criminal Court starting on 
Tuesday. 5th February, and Christine Keeler might have to attend any 
day. The casp was expected to be tried that week, and should be 
finished by the Friday. Christine Keeler was to be an important witness 
and might be subjected to cross-examination as to her credit and as 
to her character, and she might bring out their names. Until the trial 
was over the newspaper might not feel able to print her story, because 
the matter might be prejudicial to the trial and a contempt of couit 
Once the case was over the newspaper would be able to publish the 
articles without fear of being in contempt of court 

I (ii) Plans to Stop PsbHcatkm 

95. It was important therefore to do everything possible in law to stop 
the newspaper publishing the story of Christine Keeler. Hete Iwi^tn 
were in a difficulty. In the ordinary way it is very difficult to get ti| r*^ 
to stop the publication of defamatory matter: for if the defettl|| 
that the words are true and that they intend to justify them. A#| 
forgiy intervene to stop them: for the court wiU not pra-jodge f 
whether the words are true or not But in this case there j 

(*) Stephen Waid'i CoaaaA mi Mr. Rces-Davies, MJ>..ia sH th* rt^M ia Uut 

(•) Theodore Goddard A Co. 

to overcome that rule of law. Cbristioe Keeler had told her ilQeL^ Mveral 
people, iflcludjng newspaper reporters, and it had been rrpmlii^fc <iflitti. 
It was suggested that a writ for slanda be issued against hm tm !$BbBn, 
in respect of those statements. If such a writ were issued and llimmmsiKpea. 
were notified of it. the matter would become sub fudict, Ttk &impfri 
would not. it was thought, publish her story because they would (fuger 
of being in contempt of court— in respect of the slander action. Hus plan 
required ia good deal of woric. such as taking statements from witnesses, 
preparing draft writs and so forth. 

(iii) Negotiatioos to that 

96. While preparing that plan, however, for legal proceedings, an 
alternative proposal was made, namely, to see Christine Keeler. to see how 
far she had gone with the newspaper and see if she could be persuaded 
not to publish her story. There were long conferences between Stephen Ward's 
counsel and Mr. Profumo's solicitor on Saturday and Sunday, 2nd and 
3rd February. 1963. Both felt that, if negotiations of this kind were to be 
pursued, it was very desirable that Christine Keeler. for her own protection, 
should be advised by a solicitor. It was essential that she shouki not be 
advised by the solicitor to the newspaper, but be separately advised by her 
own solicitor. In a day or two. Christine Keeler did go to a solicitor. It 
appears that on Saturday afternoon. 2nd February. 1963. Mr. Profumo's 
solicitors went to see her. and. after some discussion about the contract, gave 
her the name of a solicitor and also theii own telephone number. The 
impression they got was that she wanted money. But she did not go to the 
solicitor that they suggested. Then Stephen Ward's counsel sugested the name 
of another solicitor. He was a young man who was a former pupil of his 
at the bar and had since become a soIicitor.C) On Sunday. 3rd February. 1963, 
Stephen Ward's counsel asked this young solicitor to come and see him and 
told him the outline of the story. There was an intervening approach through 
a friend and on the 4th February, 1963, at 4.30 p.m.. Christine Keeler went 
to see this solicitor. She was accompanied, not by this friend, but by 
Paul Mann. 

9,7. It is quite clear that the negotiations had these objectives: on the 
one hand Christine Keeler was to withdraw from her contract with the 
newspaper, so that her stoiy would not be published, and she was to go 
away for a while immediately after the Edgecombe trial : on the other hand 
she was in return to be paid compensation in money for the loss of her contract 
and for the expenses to which she would be put 

98. The negotiations are of importance: because in the debate on 
17th June, 1963. it was suggested by Sir Lionel Heald. Q.C.. M.P.. in the 
House of'Conmions that on 4th February. 1963, there was an approach which 
appeared to indicate a demand for money. 


(iv) The Law on the Matter 

99. Now I desire to say. in fairness to all concerned, dtetjlltfi was 
nothing unlawful in these negotiations, provkied always that X^hMRk Kflder 
had not the intention to extort money, but only to receive a fUr f rt&M p aaie. 

(') Mr. Gerald Black of Gerald Black A Co. 

The l«w on the matter 13 laid down in Sectioo 31 (2) of tiM i 
1916, which nys tfiat ** ievay petaon who. with imeM to extort «^>^Nttaiir 
iWng irom any penon directly 6c indirectly pn^oses to abftak ii^K^ 
otfen to prevent, the pnbtishing <^ aiy matter or thing touchiqf mi'mka 
person, shall be giiOty of a miadetDeaooor **. I have itaKcised the ^afitl^Km, 
words for present purposes. The words "any matter or thing" Aow itit, 
whatever the matter about to be published, that is to say, whether it be Ubel 
or no libel (see Regina v. CoghUm (1865) 4 Foster and Finlayson 3J6 at 
page 321 by Bramwell B): true or untrue (see i?«r v. Wyatt il92l) 16 Criminal 
Appeal Reports 57), nevertheless it is an offence to propose to abstain from 
the publishing of it if it is done with inteh/ to extort money. There need not 
be an express request for money. It can be implied. Even to say " If you make 
it worth my while, nothing wiil appear in the Press" will suffice, provided 
always there is an intention to extort money. (See Regina v. Menage 3 Foster 
and Finlayson 310.) Truth is no answer to the charge. The greater the truth 
the greater the weapon in the hand of the blackmailer. The gist of the offence 
is the intention to extort Such is the law if done by one atone. If the attempt 
to extort is done by two or more in combination— by threatening exposure 
even of the truth— it is indictable as a conspiracy at common law (see 
Rex V. HolHngberry (1825) 4 Barnewell and Cresswell 329). 

(v) Critical CoBversationa ' 

100. Now for the negotiations themselves. There is some controversy 
as to what took place which 1 feel I cannot resolve. So 1 set down the 
versions on cither side of the critical conversations. The name of Paul Mann 
comes again into the story at this point. Duricg these critical days of early 
February, 1963, Stephen Ward and Ouistine Kecler had quarrelled, but 
Paul Mann still remained friendly with both and acted as intermediary 
between them. On Saturday evening, 2nd February, 1963, Stephen Ward 
took Paul Mann to see Stephen Ward's counsel in his private house and 
counsel saw him alone. According to counseKs note made shortly afterwards 
Paul Mann said: think that (Christine should be made to deny everything 
and taUc, propositionwise as to what it is worth for her to be quiet. I think 
she is open to a higher bid. She is not satisfied with £1,000, I told her she 
ought to have obtained a good deal more.^ According to Paul Mann hunself, 
he said. ^ I was myself quite concerned with people's reputations and one 
thing and another and the possible scandal that the papers could make of 
the whole thing. I said I did not know what she was going to do, but I said 
I would be only too willing to take her away after the trial and to keep the 
Press away from her. I remember saying too, that I certainly could not do it 
all on my own funds, but I was quite prepared to make it a hotiday for 
myself. There were no sums mentioned.** Both agreed that counsel broke off 
the conversation and said he could not discuss the proposition, and told 
Paul Mann that he should get Christine Keeler to go and see a jofidiv. • 

101. On Monday aflemobn, 4th Fcbnia^, 1963. at about 4^^|tJB.. 
Paul Mann accompanied Christine Keeler to the solicitor wfa(M» ilpwd 
been mentioned by Stephen Ward's counsel (paragraph 96). She weH 

see the solicitor whilst Paul Mann sat outside next to the switcfabMill!' 9be 
brought with her the telephone number of Mr. Profumo*s solicitor: and 
after takmg her instructions, the solicitor telephoned Mr. Profumo*s solicitor. 


There is a controversy as to the opening words: Christine KhMi solicitor 
says that he said to Mr. Profumo*s solicitor, I understand jMr^intt have 
offered to help her financially and he said Yes ** : wherew li| flQflimo*s 
solicitor denies that any such opening took place. Save for Ifllilliiatmverqr 
it seems dear that the substance of the oonvecsatioa was as MfNi: . 

.; .. . • ■ '■; : . . • ■.. . ■ ••sO'??>fi''i --i-' ■■ 

(vi) Chrisdne asks for £5^ 

102. Christine Keder's solicitor told Mr. Profuiso's solidtM that he was 
acting for Christine, that she did not wish to harm Mr. Profumo in any way. 
but she had no one to turn to for finandal assistance except the newspaper. 
She was due to see the newspaper later that afternoon and the newspaper 
had arranged for her to stay at the White House. If she did not continue to 
help the newspaper with the publication she would be without money. 
Christine Kedei's sotidtor said he thought that the criminal proceedings 
against John Edgecombe would probabty be on that week and that she 
intended to go away after the trial. She proposed to go abroad, to America. 
She was to receive from the newspaper £1^00 for six articles or £1.000 for 
four. Christine Keelefs solidtor said they did not want to pubUsh and that 
the matter was a delicate one. One of them asked the other what he had in 
mind (there is some controversy on this) and after a little to and fro 
Christine Keeler*s solicitor said £3.000. Mr. Profumo*s solidtor said he would 
take instructions. A very short time later, however, Christine Keeler's 
solidtor (who had Christine present with him) telephoned to Mr. Profumo's 
solidtor and said that she would need £5.000 as she wanted to get a house 
for her parents. Mr. Profumo*s solidtor s^ he would have to put the matter 
to his client. Christine's solidtor said he would await an answer. None came; 
so he himself telephoned, but was told Mr. Profumo*s solidtcn: had gone out 

(vu) Was k an Offcace? 

103. Meanwhile what had happened was this : Mr. Profumo's solidtors 
regarded the request for £5,000 as so serious that they went round that 
evening to seek the advice of Queen's Counsel,(*) and then, with him and 
Mr. Profumo. they went to see the Attorney-General. Sir John Hobsoa» 
and told him of it. The Attorney-General thought it should be referred to 
the Director of Public Prosecutions. Mr. Profumo said that he was prepared 
to prosecute, if the Director thought it desirable. The next morning 
Mr. Profumo's legal advisers explained the matter to the Director of Public 
Prosecutions who advised against a prosecution. 

104. In view of what I have said earlier oa the law. the question 
whether there was an ofifence or no in asking for money depended on 
whether there was an intent to extort or not If it was a fair recompense, 
there would be nothing unlawful. Upon this point Christine Keiipir's solidtor 
explained to me that, in mentioning £3,000 he was thinkmg fit Wit ft wouki 
cost to have her represented by counsel, what it woukl oopS^ hsve her 
protected at the trial by an ex-CJD. officer or somethiag mMpllk what it 
would cost to put her parents in a house somewhere, and (lijCjB'wtiiliid to 
go off to America after the trial of John Edgecombe for s WSSs^, After 

(•) Mr. Mark Uttnun. QjC 

put the telephone down Chrisdne Kedcr said, ** I think yoo i 
lave a^ed for £5.000. How much i« the house going to cost? ** The i 
said, ** £2.000 up to £3.000". She saic^ " It will cost me £500 
away in America. I would like to have something to come back to. 11 
like you to phone and say £5.000.'' So he did ao. l- .•^■ffLi^ 

105. I would like to say, in fairness to Christine Keelcr's solicitor, that 
he had only been brought into the case at very short notice and had no 
time to reflect It was a situation entirely out of the ordinary. He told me 
he thought the £5.000 was nothing to the persons concerned and it did aeeffl 
a pretty fair cstinwte of what Christme Keeler would be involved in. 
Having seen him, I am sure he had no intention to extort and oag^t fsixly 
to be excused for what does look, I confess, at first si^t a most unjustifi- 
able suggestion. . . 

106. As for Christine Kccler, it is only fair to say that, if she had been 
minded to blackmail Mr. Profumo, she would probably have kep: the 
* Darling' letter herself and not handed it over to the Sunday Pictorial 
Further, I would record her statement to me: When £3,000 was mentioned, 
^hc says, " I said No, and I know this sounds wicked, I said £5,000 because 
I wanted to move my parentSi you sec, so I do admit that I did say to raise 
it. ... It was not a matter of blackmail. I would have asked for £50,000 if 
it was." Let no one judge het too harshly. iShe was not yet 21. And since the 
age of 16 she had become enmeshed in a net of wickedness. I would credit 
her, too. with a desire only for a fair recompense and not an intention to extort 

1 07. It b quite clear that after the telephone conversation on 4th February, 
1963, Mr. Profumo's solicitors had no negotiations with Christine Keeler or 
anyone on her behalf to pay her any money. But Stephen Ward's counsel had 
negotiations with Christine*s solicitors to which I must now turn. 

(viu) Negotiatioiis with SfepiMB Ward 

lOS. On the next day. 5th Februaiy, 1963, Christine Keeler*8 solicitor 
was speaking, he told me, to Ward's counsel on another matter, and afterwards 
they got on to the subject of Christine. Christine's solicitor said he was acting 
for her and said. " She says she would like to have five " (meaning £5,000). 
Stephen Ward's counsel (presumably acting on behalf of Stephen Ward) said. 
" Oh. I am sure that will be aU tight. I will let you know ^ Christine's soUcitar 
said it was most urgent. That afternoon Christine's solicitor wient and collected 
£50 in cash from Stephen Ward's counsel. Christine's solicitor gave her £20 of 
the £50 and she agreed not to go to the White House (the flat provided by the 
newspaper) and did not go. Next day Christine's solicitor went to collect Che 
balance of the^5.000. as he thought Stephen WanTs counsel gave him a packet 
which he opened. Inside was £450. It then became clear, he told me. that when 
he had said "five" on the telephone, Stephen Ward's counsel had f*^ 
he meant £500, not £5.000. Christine's solicitor said he could not takiD C 
He went bade and told her what had happened She thought shia ~ 
tricked. She wonM not dream of accepting the money. She wouki j 
is the last the solicitor saw of hef. 

109. Stephen Ward's counsel gave me an account which coin 
most of the essentials. He told me that ii^en Christine's solidtor said she 
wanted ** five in expenses **. he took it to mean £500. not £5.000. This aooonlsd 


exacUy ^tfa th« expenses Wen to his mind. He wcnted thegli M in this 
!my: As she had already leoetved £200 from the newsp^er^^ M iNight to 
repay it to them. That made £200. Then she ought to be sn'i wpwMtilMl ia 
a hotel over the trial which would cost £100. And she ought to live £200 to 
be away after the trial for the next fortnight Stephen Wanfk oounsd told me 
that Christine's solicitor said it was most urgent and, on that account, he did 
let him have £50 in cash out of his own pocket that afternoon. On the next 
day he reported it to bis solicitor who also thought £500 was a proper sum. So 
he made arrangements with Stephen Ward and got the money from him. He 
offered the £450 to Christine's solicitor : but he did not accept it 

110. Stephen Ward got the £500 in this way. He asked Lord Astor to 
lend it to him: and Lord Astor (after consulting his solicitor) did lend it to 
him. But Stephen Ward did not disclose to Lord Astor the precise purpose <k 
the £500. The knowledge which Lord Actor had is shown by two letters of 
6th Februaiy which record the transaction. Stephen Ward ynote on 
6th February: 

" Dear Bill. 

As I told you I have become involved in legal proceedings which are 
likely to involve me in heavy expenses and if you could lend me £500 I 
should be very grateful indeed. yours ever, 

Stephen " 

Lord Astor replied on the same day. 6th Februaiy: 

** So sorry to hear of your difficulty— I will be very glad to lend yon 
£500. Pay me back when you can. or you can work some of it off in 
treatment, should I have any sprains, bruises or hunting accidents.** 

At the same time Lord Astor drew a cheque for £500 in Stephen Ward's 
favour dated 6th February, 1963. Stephen Ward had no banking account so 
he could not pay it into his own account But the cheque, or the cash it 
represented, came into the hands of his counsel. He repaid himself the £50 
and offered the £450 to Christine's solicitor. 

(ix) The £500 |oes to Stephen Ward 

111. After £450 was refused Stephen Ward's solicitor collected the £450 
firom counsel that afternoon and placed it to the credit of Stephen Ward on 
their client's account There it remained until it was withdrawn by Stephen 
Ward as to £150 on 20th Februaiy. 1963. and the balance on 15th March, 
1963. Stephen Ward used the money to pay his rent and other personal debts. 
None dt it went to Christine Keeler or anyone on her behalf. 

(x) Chrisliae goca back to the Newspapcfi 

112. Pending the negotiations about £5.000. Christine had not 
gone to sign the proofs of her article for the newspaper. She ha diBil.« caaei 
and kept away. But Sfhen the negotktions broke down she wm^mt to the 
newspaper. She went and signed the proofs. That was on 8th Vmmtif, 1963. 


--.^ .-^^ CHAPTER -Vin-'^ .:<--J-vJ-.::: n 

. . ■ ■• , ■ ■• ' ■ >- ■ ' ■ ■'■■'■*• 

113. The Ministers were concerned from a vety early stage. Jiir. WlH0m 
saw the Attorney-General on 28tfa January. 1963. before he saw aiy llqrvr 
of his own. And a week later, on 4th February. 1963. he saw the Oriel Whip. 
These Ministers played a very important part in what took place. • 

(i) The Law Officers 

114. No one can understand the part played by the Law Officers in 
the Profumo affair imlcss he realises Uiat by a convention which is well 
accepted, any of the Ministers of the Crown (who thinks he may be involved 
fn litigation) is entitled to consult the Law Officers and ask their advice. 
In particular, when a Minister feels that his good name is being assailed* 
he is entitled to consult the Law Officers and ask them whether anything 
said about him is actionable as a libel or slander: and if it is. whether it 
is convenient from the point of view of the Government that he should 
bring an action.' * ' 

115. It must also be remembered that at the end of January, or early 
February, 1963, the Law Officers were closely concerned with Lord RadcUffe's 
enquiry into the Vassall case. They had given advice to the Ministers whose 
names were mentioned there. They had very much in mind the position of 
Mr. Galbraith. Here was a Minister against whom allegations had been 
made, and who had resigned his office. Rumours had spread about him in 
the Press and in the House of Commons. Yet the evidence against him had« 
in the course of the inquiry, been shown to be utterly false, and the charge 
had been disproved. The inquiry had not been concluded — it was not 
concluded until 5th April, 1963— but the X^w Officers had already heard 
enough to be able to form a good opinion as to the outcome. 

116. Such is the background. Oa 28th January. 1963. Stephen WanTs 
counsel asked to see the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General was 
engaged at the Vassall case. So the Solicitor-General saw him instead. 
Stephen Ward's counsel told the Solicitor-General that a young girl proposed 
to write a story for a newspaper, telling of her relationship with various 
people, amongst whom was Lord Astor and Mr. Profumo. The Solicitor- 
General felt that, as Mr. Profumo's name was mentioned, the Law Officers 
were interested. And when the Attorney-General got back from the Vassall 
case at 4.30 p.m.. the Solicitor-General said to him : " Here is another of 
these rumours concerning another Minister. Mr. Profumo *\ As a Minister 
was involved the Attorney-General thought it was his duty to see whether 
he was goingr to bring a libel action and, if so, to say he was available to 
help. So the Attorney-General wrote him a note asking him to come and 
see him. And that night at about 11 p.m. Mr. Profumo weat to sea tlie 
Attorsey-General at his own home. • . x 

(ii) The Attorney-General Interviews Mr. Profum " 

117. As this first interview is of considerable importance I iiiimMM 
with it in some detail. The Attorney-General began by telling Mr. P l Ii iBM 

that he must be absolutely frank with him. and that unless bs^^via foing 
to ten the truth, he was not prepared to help him. Mr. TtM^ told the 
Attorney-General that be had first met Christme Keeler at CMpn when 
his wife and many other people were present That shortly after 11 had gone 
to Stephen Ward's flat for a drink at his invitation and diat tinieafter be 
had done so on several occasions when Christine Keelef was amoag the 
guests. Mr. Profumo said that twice when he arrived Christine Keeler was 
there alone and there had been a period when they were alone together 
before other people arrived. Mr. Profumo asserted the complete innocence 
of his friendship with her and said that not only had there been no adulteiy 
but no sexual impropriety of any kind whatsoever. Mr. Profumo said that 
he recollected having written to her one short note which he thought began 
with the word * darling * telling her that he could not come to a cocktail 
party. He wrote this note, he said, on the day wben he had been seen by 
the security people and warned by them not to go to Stephen Ward*s flat, 
because one of Ward's friends was a member of the Russian Embassy. 
Mr. Profumo said that this was the total limit of his acquaintance with this 
girl. He had now heard that, based on this association and the one letter, 
Christine Keeler (who had recently become a drug addict and had been 
sleeping with West Indians and was short of money) was proposing to 
sell a false story to the newspapers which would ruin him. 

118. The Attorney-General questioned Mr. Profumo about everything 
which he told him and emphasised again the vital importance of his telling 
him the complete truth. He told him that if there was any truth in these 
rumours, he would have to resign. Mr. Profumo reiterated the complete 
innocence of his friendship with Christine Keeler and explained that be 
commonly used the word 'darling* but said this was of no consequence 
as. being married to an actress, he had got into the habit of using this 
term of endearment which was quite meaningless. 

119. The Attorney-General 'told Mr. Profumo that if his story was true, 
he would have to take proceedings as soon as he had proof of any publication 
of any such stoiy. Mr. Profumo again repeated that there was nothing in these 
rumours. The Attomey-Genezal then advised him to instruct the best possible 
solicitors and. that day or next morning, suggested that he should get in touch 
with Mr. Daek Oogg, a senior partner in Theodore Goddard & Co., a 
solicitor of high repute and wide experience. 

120. After hearing Mr. Profumo's story the Attomey-Oeneral was sus- 
picious. He thought it was rather odd. And he retained a reasonable incredulity 
about it He reported the matter to the Chief Whip and discussed the matter 
jvith tlK SoIidtor-GeneraL 

(iii) The Solidtor-GeMrd conei li ^ 

121. A few days later the Attorney-General went to Mr. Mft^ zoom, 
and he asked the Solicitor-General to come too. The S(dMltar43enenl 
emphasised to Mr. Profumo how vital it was. in his own iBMKWd thoM 
of everyone, that he should be absolutely frank. Mr. Frotfllto said be 
undentood that and he repeated more sbortiy and in broad ootfifle what he 
had told the Attorney-General on 28th January,- adding that at one of the 


cocktail parties he had ^ven Ovistine Kteler a lifter whidi was aot H aB 
' irahiable but which she had admired when he used it The $<^lflC fl p wi l 
asked Mr. Profumo whether in those drcumstaoces he was preparatf 1i Ina 
a writ for slander or libd if he was advised that a proper opportimitjr ftmated 
itseM. Mr. Profamo said that he most certainly would, even if k were afabst a 
friend or colleague. The Solicitor-General reminded him of (he effect of soch 
a course of action if there was any chance for any defendant attempting to 
justify and could prove that Mr. Profumo had been guilty of adultery. Mr. 
Profamo replied that be was aware of that but that not every man who was 
alone with a woman and called her ** dariing committed adultery with her. 
Whatever might be said, he was not guilty of any improper conduct with 
Christine Kccler or of anything except the friendship of which he had told the 
Attorney-General Mr. Profumo said that he appreciated that of course it 
now all looked different, particularly because of the deterioration in manner 
and recent conduct of the girl, but that at the time when he knew her she was 
very different. Mr. Profumo said that he knew that (because of those few 
meetings and because he had been alone with her only for a short time and 
before others had arrived) he now faced ruin for himself and his family. He 
knew, he said, that in the particular dimate of opinion then prevailing (the 
Radcliffe Tribunal was still sitting) there would be those who would disbelieve 
him, but that it would be grossly unfair that he should be driven from public 
life and into ruin when he was totally innocent and that he should become 
a victim of malevolent gossip, some of which was seeking to do to him what 
it had tried to do shortly before to one of his colleagues. Mr. Profumo 
insisted again, with vehemence, that be bad not committed adultery and that, 
although he would naturally prefer that the gossip should die down, if anything 
was ever published or if he could identity a gossip-monger, be would sue, no 
matter who it was. 

122. On Sunday evening, 3rd February, Mr. Profumo came with his 
solicitor (Mr. Clogg) to see Ae Attorney-General at his home. There was a 
general discussion in which Mr. Qogg made it clear that Mr. Profumo had 
told him just the same as he had jpreviously told the Attorney-General. In 
particular that Mr. Profumo's relationship with Christine Keelcr was entirely 

123. Oq Monday evening, 4th February, the Attorney-General again 
saw Mr. Profumo. Mr. Profumo had with him his leading counsel and his 
solicitor. They reported to the Attorney-General the request for £5,000 made 
by Christine^ Keelcr, through her solicitor, to Mr. Profumo (I have described 
this in paragraph 103). The Attorney-General thought it was serious and 
advised Mr. Profumo that the facts should be placed before the Director of 
Public Prosecutions. The Attorney-General took the view that thcfC woidd 
only be air offence if the proposed publication was untrue and ]lbei|pM:0 
and he was impressed by the fact that Mr. Profumo was ready to pq^iiHi 
If a prosecution was brought. Mr. Profumo would have to give evidijin <m 
oath about his relationship with Christine KLeeler. 

C) Note.— I do not myself share this view. Even if tnie, it would. I dunk, be an 
offence, if done with Intent to extort. See paragrti^ 99. 

(rv) Mr. Profump*s Story Accepted 





124. Up till this time the Attomey-Ceneral had bees dubioo* whether 
Mr. Piofumo was tellbig the truth. He ww keejnng the ma^^^ift in^iase. * 
But when he found that Mr. Piofumo was pr«paied to bfiag ip l|Bli« lor 
HbeU and had actually instructed his solicitor to do so, aod .411 was 
prepared to prosecute on the request for £5.000, he did not see:]ia#lw could 
disbelieve Mr. Profumo, and ^ko^kA. there was no reason wdiy ha Ibovkl not 
accept his story. We now know that on Tuesday.' Sth Febmaiy, 1963, 
Mr. Profumo and his solicitor did see the Director of Public Ptosecntioiif 
who advised agaasst a prosecution. But that does not affect the argumeoL 
What impressed the Attorney-General was the readiness of Mr. Ftofumo 
to prosecute. . 

(v) Tlie Chief Whip . 

125. No one can understand the role of the Chief Whip Martin 
Redmayne. M.P.) in this matter unless he realises chat he is vciy coscemed 
with the good name of the CSovemment and the Ministers who comprise it 
If rumours are about which may embarrass the Government, it is the 
business of the Chief Whip to know of them and to report them to the Prime 
Minister. The Chief Whip was very concerned at this time with the rumours 
about Mr. Galbraith (which were subsequentiy shown in Lord Radcline's 
inquiry to be completely unfounded). So he was concerned here with the 

I ^ rumours about Mr. Profumo. 

I (jBi ^ <vi) 1st Febwaiy, 1963— A Newspaper caU at Admiialty Hooie 

l^f \' 126. In order to see how the Chief Whip came into the matter. I 
must first refer to a very important thing which happened. On the afternoon 
of Friday, 1st February. 1963. a senior executive of a newspaper telephoned 
Admiralty House and asked to see the Prime Minister. But the Prime 
Minister was away In Italy and would not be buck untS Ae ev ening ol 
Sunday. 3rd February. So the executive called at Admiralty House and gave 
this information to one of his Secretaries, who recorded it in this note: 

*' The object of his caU concerned a security matter. ... Mr. Profumo 
had compromised himself with a girl who was involved with a negro 

_ . __ _1 % TLJ- ^-t*. ».~«. «- 

^I a case awui ancmpiGu luunici. . . . luu gut a »iwjr ua» v^u. «uiu 
to the Daily Mirror Group and it will include passages in which she was 
involved with Mr. Profumo and in which the Russian Naval Attach^ 
also figured. ... Mr. Profumo is alleged to have met this girl * Kolania* 
through Lord Astor at Cliveden, where they chased her naked round the 
t-'-^i.: 1 T« ...1..^ .^11^..^ «!...* ii\ * ir^i * *u:. 

oaiUUlg {MJUl. ... xi^ IB <U9V au«i||(c» lUM VV AUMuw uitw uu» 

company through the agency of a Mr. Ward, who was a * psychopathic 
specialist* of Wimpole Street; (ii) Mr. Profumo. visiting *Kolania* in 
Mr. Ward's house, passed in the passage the Russian Naval Attach^ on 
his way out from 'Kolania*; (iii) 'Kolania* has two lettcn on War 

O mc e paper si^cd ' j * — altuGUgu it i5 uOt SUggeStSu *uni tawfiS lettSti 

are anything more than ones of assignation.** .u^. 


(vu) 1st Febniaiy, 1963— The Sccerity Service come to i 

12?. On receipt of this minute the Prime Mini «tcr*a Mgiflrit Ftlvale 
Secretary asked the Deputy Kcector-General of Uie Securi^ Sa^&to oome 
to Admiralty House. His object was simply to tdl him about It and to get 


ftnrmibnnatiiM wludi might be hdpTol for turn Tnv^te Sifiiill^Jp 
report to die Prime Minister. The Private Secretaty handed tbt^ mj^JI 
Director-General a&e note and uked if lie had any commettU. Hm MMlr 
Director-General said that veiy recentfy the Director-Gcaenl teiMpt^* 
confidential talk with Mr. Proftamo hi whuA Mir. Ptofumo had nedfiM 
a story that was recognisably the Same stoiy: but that the pA waa called 
C9iii8tine and not tCc^ania: Out Mr. Ward was Stephen Ward: and that be 
was not a ** psychopathic specialist ** b&t an osteopath. The Deputy Director- 
General toW the Private Seoetaiy Aat these confidences seemed to have 
been made by Mr. Profumo io the hope tiiat there might be security grounds 
for taking action with the Press, by D notice or otherwise, to prevent 
publicati<m, but this hope was a vain one. The Deputy Director-General 
and the Private Secretary agreed that the first step was to tell Mr. Profumo 
what had been said and ask if there was any truth in it The Private 
Secretary said he would try and do it that evening. Mr. Profumo wpuld 
then have to decide whether he should tender his resignation to the Prime 
Minister or not The Private Secretary said it would be necessary for him 
to ^ve the information to the Chief Whip and also to tell die Prime Minister 
on his return from Italy. . 

(viui 1st Fdma^, 1963— Mr. Praf vno is sees 

128. Late that evening the Private Secretary called on Mr. Profumo and 
explained that they had had a story about an article that might possibly appear 
in the Press and which would show him in a bad light. He told him that 
normally he woiUd have reported it to the Prime Minister, but he was out 
of the country, and asked for advice how to proceed. Mr. Profumo said 
that he bad been in continuous touch during that week with die Attorney* 
General and the Solicitor-General and he was also being advised by a private 
firm of solicitors. His solicitor had spoken to someone who was going to put 
pressure on the Sunday Pictorial not to publish these articles. His solicitcAr 
was also seeing the girl in question at her request since she said she was iii 
trouble. Mr. Profumo suggested that the Private Secretary need not bother 
the Prinpe Minister with all this at this stage. But the Private Secretary said 
it seemed of great importance that Mr. Profumo should see the Chief Whip 
without delay. And Mr. Profuxno said he would do so, 

129. It should be mentioned here that on Sunday. 3rd February. 1963, 
the News of the World published a pictare of Christine Keeler saying that 
she was to be a witness in the shooting case I have described earlier 
(par^raph 54). Most people seeu% that picture would realise what she was. 

(be) «h February, 19d3~-The Chief ^Tiip sees Mr, Profamo 

130. Mr. Profumo saw the Oiief Whip on Monday. 4th Februaiy. at 
12 noon. The Prime Wxasicfs Private Secretary was present lit. Ipfklillii' 
outlined the story for the benefit of the Chief Whip. The events iMpi to 
had all taken place between July and December of 1961. He had M« «t 
the bathing pool in July when there had been a ptetty cheerful p» bet 
everybody had bathing costumes on. Mr. Profumo said he had subMqpuilly. 
in order to get a giggle in the evening, gone round to Stephen Wafd*! flat 
to meet a few young people and have a drink befort dinner. Mr. Proftimo 
said that most of liie young ladies to be found at this flat were not the sort 


of people one would wish to acoompaoy one to a coostituncf ipwlllf. Bwt 
his wife bad many theatrical fnendi and he.i^ used to |b thir 

gaI6te. Mr. Profumo said that there had beea « ietter w)M #»»d "My 
Darling ** but it had been quite hatmless. He also admitted to a wriB ^caent^ 
a cigarette lighter. His lawyen had ananged to meet OsMm. Met on 
Saturday. 2nd Fcbruaiy. She had said that the money the new^pen were 
offering her for her 8t(»y was ^ enough and she wanted more. She refused 
to say that any of the stories that had J>een put about were untrue. She made 
it clear that money was what she wanted. Mr. Profumo said he had been toW 
by Sir Norman Brook (who had been advised by MX 5) to see as Uttlc as 
possible of Stephen Ward since there was a security problem involved. 
Mr. Profumo said that his lawyers had advised him to do nothing but to wait 
and see what, if anything, the newspaper published. If this was libellous he 
could then issue a writ The Attom^-General and the Solicitor-General were 
advising htm in the same sense. Mr. Profumo added that he had made a 
full report on the position to the Head of the Security Service. 

(X) Ml. Piofimio Aaks-^Shonld He Resi|p? 

131. Mr. Profumo asked if he should tell the Prime Minister at this 
stage. The Chief Whip thought that it was not necessary. Mr. Profumo and 
the Chief Whip discussed the current rumours and Mr. Profumo asked 
whether the Chief Whip thouf^t he should resigu on account of them. The 
Chief Whip said that, if they were true, of course he should resign, but if 
untrue, it would be a great mistake. The thing was to wait for the iiewspaper 
articles if they appeared— which, he understood, might be in a fortnight — and 
then the position would have to be looked at again. Mr. Profumo said that he 
had never met the Russian Assistant Naval Attach^ at Stephen Ward's flat 
He bad been present at the bathing party in the summer. The only other 
time he bad met him was when, accompanied by his vrife. he went to the 
Gagarin Reception— and had reason to remember Mr. Ivanov as he promised 
to get them a vodka and went off. never to be seen again. 

(xi) Mr. Piof amo*s Disarming Answer 

'l32. Such was the story told by Mr. Profumo to the Chief Whip and 
from which he never resiled. When the Chief Whip, to test him took the 
line, "Well, look, nobody would believe that you didn't sleep with her," 
Mr. Profumo made the disarmmg answer. **Yes, I know they wouldn't 
believe it. but it happens to be true that I didn't sleep with her He assured 
the Chief Whip repeatedly that what he said was true and that he was waiting 
for an opportunity to take action to refute the story. The Chief Whip was 
kept informed by the Attorney-General of the various discussions which he 
had had with Mr. Profumo. Just as the Attorney-General felt that they must 
accept his version as true, so ^d the Chief Whip, The Attoiaey-Gcneral 
explained to the Chief Whip from time to time that, if any piiprttioii was 
made, a writ would be issued, but that no opportunity had occurred. 

(xii) The Wcftnunitcr Confided ^ 

133. The first opportunilty to hriqg an action came wImb a private 
newsletter called the Westminster. Confidemiid gave mention to the nunours. 
This is a typewritten letter, stcaidlled and distributed to 200 or ao subscribers. 


In an is$ue dated 8th March. 1963. this newsletter rcfmed to the fart 1 
'the girls had started selling their stories to the Sunday newiptpett i 

" One of the choicest bits in their stories was a tettw^ . 

signed * Jock* on the stationery of the Secretary for W+r. pel ^ 

by this girl was that not only was this Munster. who haa a 
actress as his wife, her cUent, but also the Soviet Military AttacM. 
apparently a Colonel Ivanov. The famous actress wife, of course. woiUd 
suefor divorce, the scandal ran. Who was using ^^i'^^S;^ 
whom of information-the W+r Secretary or the Soviet Mditaiy 
Attach^?— ran the minds of those primarily interested in. security. 
This newsletter did not come at once to the knowledge of Mr. PJ<*>n>?^ 
the Chief Whip or the Attorney-General. They got to know of it about 
13th March. 

134. The question has been asked. Why was not an action for hbcl . 
taken on this publication? It was dearly defamatory of Mr. Profuma K / 
he was seeking an opportunity to vindicate himself, why not bring an artion? I 
The answer is this: It was considered by Mr. Profumo and his Ic^l advis« ^ 
and also tiie Attorney-General. Mr; Profumo^ legal adviser was disinclmed 
to take action. He did not tiiink this was the right occasion to sue. The 
Attorney-General agreed with this view. The Westminster Confidential \^ 
too small a circulation, and contained scandal about someone else. too. which 
ought not to be made pubUc. It was very probable tiiat this publicauon ^of 
the Westminster Confidential was only the beginning, so that very soon stonc^ 
might begin to appear in the national Press. It was better, therefore, to wart 
for a more substantial publication, 

135 The opportunity to refute the rumours was not long in coming. 
It came in a fortnight. But it came in an unexpected form. On 21st March. 
1963 Members of ParUament made statements in tiie House of Commona. 
Meaiwhile many things had happen^. Christine Keeler had disappeared. 
She did not appear to give evidence at the Edgecombe tnal. And to add to 
all tiie previous rumours, fliere was a new one. tiiat Mr. Profumo had 
helped l^er to disappear. 

CHAPTER iX /• !.v -t;-? iiis|^.fc>''. 

Ci) Law • - r:.;.\;>4i. •. 

136. One of the matters that has given rise to much poblic nneasiness is 
Christine Keeler's disappearance in March. 1963. with the result t}iat she never 
appeared to give evidence at the trial of Jphn Edgecombe. She was taken 
to Spain by Paul Mann. It is suggested that this was procured by people 
in high places, because they were afraid their names might come out in 
her evidenoe «t the trial If this foe the case, then it would be. of course, a 
very serious matter. - > . 

137. The law is this: If a witness, who is bound over by recognizance 
to appear to give e^dence. does not come forward at the trial, his liabili^ 
depends whether there is good excuse or not If he or she has a good excuse, 
as. for instance, is ill and cannot Come, it is no brM^h of recognizance. But 
if he or she has no good excuse, then the recognizance is liable to be 
forfeited. In this case Christine Keeler was bound over in die sum of £40 
and she forfeited that sum. But there is this further law: It is a criminal 
offence for two or more persons to conspire together to obstruct the course 
of justice by getting a witness to disappear, sec Rex v. Stevertton (1S02) 
2 East 362. And in seeing whether persons have been guilty of a conspiracy, 
it was said by Lord Campbell when Lord Chief Justice of England. *' If the 
necessary effect of the agreement was to defeat the ends of justice, that 
must be taken to be the object, see Regina v- Hamp and others (1852) 
6 Cox Criminal Cases at p. 172 [I think must should {at>bably be read as 

138. Such being the law 1 have looked to see whether there is ^ny 
evidenoe of any such conspiracy. 

Cii) The SoUdior is afraid «h« will be " Spirited ont of the Comitry 

139. Before considering Christine Keelcr's disappearance in March, I 
must refer to what happened early in February. 1963. when the John 
Edgecombe case was eiipected to come on shortly. Stephen Ward's solicitor 
told me that he was scared that Christine Keeler would disappear: *'Tbe 
one thing I was afraid of was that Christine Keeler. a material witness in the 
Edgecombe trial, would be spirited out of the country I asked him, " Why 
did you fear that?"* His answer was: ''Simply because of various things 
Ward ^ said to me **. The solicitor gave Stephen Ward this firm and wise 
advice. " On no account must any of us be a party to tiiat thing 

140. About that very time too* eaily ui February, 1963, Mann (oa 
his own admission to me) made this suggestion to Stepben ]^VRf^i counsel 
(I have ahvady quoted it, but it is so important that at this poiMfltlBpeat it): 

I said I did not know what she was going to do, but I sdB would be 
only too willing to take her away after the trial and to keep i^^him away 
from her. I remember saying, too. that I certainly could no^ db ft all on 
my own funds but I was quite prepared to make a holiday for myself**. 

When I aiked Pitiil Maim die questkm: "Th^ wanted her to diM|poM 
• 4fl«r the trial?** be replied." No., f^wM.|n<wfy 
disappear: nobody said, * Yes, we want her to go after Ac Iriai' * ^^' 

141. I take it to be clear, thetefore; that feafly in Febiiiaiy. |*IS, 
Stephen Ward conceived the idea that Christine Keeler should disapp«t and 
meationed it to Paul Mann; that Paul Mann was willing to assist in it: but 
nothing was said expressly whether she was to disappear before or after the 
trial. It is equally clear that the lawyers would have nothing to do with it 
It was on 5th February, 1963. that Mr. Profumo and his lawyer consulted the 
Director of Public Prosecutions, On 7th February. Mr. Profumo's solicitor 
told Stephen Ward*8 solicitor of the point. Stephen Ward's solicitor (who 
had on the day before approved the offer of £500) told me, ** My'iunber Hght 
very quickly turned to red and I told my client on no account must he pay 
any money to her or her solicitor or to her account **. Even the £500 was not 
to be paid to her. He told me: " The thing I was scared of from the very 
beginning was that Christine Keeler would be spirited away out of the 
country, and the last thing I wanted was for Stephen Ward to be concerned 
.with that. And if she had disappeafed abroad or had had £500 from us. it 
.would have looked extremely fishy." . 

Oii) PaoI Mane Plans to Take a Holiday ' 

142. As it happened the Edgecombe mal was postponed be^muse of the 
illness of the mini-cab driver. It was adjourned until the next Sessions and 
was expected to come on for trial in March, 1963. Meanwhile, however, from 
the first week in February. 1963. Paul Mann was in close touch wth Christine 
Keeler. He told me that he started to spend a tremendous amount of time 
syith her, almost as it were keeping a 24-hour watch on her. The lime came* 
tie told me. when she was in a very distressed state and wanted to leave and 
get away from it all. She told me herself that she was in fear of two coloured 
men who had been paid to cut her up. She said. I knew it was my duty to 
go to the Court but to tell you the truth, I tfioug^t, ' To hell with my duly, 
I am not going to let people knock me about &om here to there \ I did not 
realise the seriousness of the consequences. I just decided to leave." 
Paul Mann told me that he had himself been planning to have a holiday in 
Spain a little later but at Christine Kecler's request he brought his holiday 
forward about two weeks and decided to go earlier. The decision was taken 
about the end of February. 1963. and they left on the night of Friday. 
8th March, 1963. 

(iv) ITiey Leave for Spain 

143. They yftnt by It ms & party of Aree, PaiJ Mann, Christme 
Keeler and Kim Proctor. They told me they had very little money. 
Christine Keeler had £20 whidi she gave to Pnul Mann. Kim ftod^r.^irt in 
money too. I asked Paul Mann what means he had at that dflM. MHidd:) 
"I had my own means, untraceable resources. It did realfy. kM|| on 
Friday tught, find us in a sticky position. Betw^n the thr^ of v£» wSsisSA 
think we had £100 and some dollars, but I had an insurance cheqot wtMS. 
The insurance company had an office in Slpaln, and I thought then weald 
be no trouble in cashing it at all, but it turned oat it tock them pnctlcally 


fcnr we^ to cash this dieque* At any rate, with soch laeaaa il fiay had, 
Oey drove across France aod into Spain and disappeared. tiMg maA to a 
remote fisUog village on the coast of Spain. No one diM ! *Uftd 
^hereabouts untfl they went to Madrid at the week-end 23sA4pk Maicb, 

1963. .V ' , '.. • -/ ' "i^* ' : -f' 

(V) Xfce Newipapeit Slid ItaB . 

144. On Sunday. 24th March. i963» Paul Mann telephoned the Britisb 
Embassy. Early on Monday. 25tb Maidi. 1963, Christine Kceler appeared at 
a police station in Madrid and asked to stay the night Newspaper reporten, 
she said, wece besi^ing tbc fiat where she yn» staying. The newspaper 
reporters did in &ct find them. And they were quick to ndake a contract with 
her under which she would sell them the story of her disappearance. Paul 
Mann negotiated it She was to get £2.000, of which 25 per cent (£500) went 
to Paul Mann. The newqjaper reporters arranged accommodation for her. 
as she had nothing. They gave £45 to Paul Mann for immediate expenses. 
The rest was paid to them when they got bade to England. On 28th Mardi. 
1963, they brought Christine Keeler back to England and took her to Scotland 
Yard. On 1st April. 1963. she went to the Central Criminal Court and her 
recognisance in the sum of £40 was forfeited for her non-appearance. Paul 
Mann did not return till some time later. He only came back on 12th June. 

145. If the intention of Paul Mann and Christine Keeler was to enable 
Christine Keeler to avoid being called as a witness in the Edgecombe trial, 
they succeeded completely. The trial of John Edgecombe was started on 
Thursday, Nth March. 1963. and finished on Friday. 15tb March. 1963. 
Oiristine Keeler was of course missing- The prosecution could, no doubt 
have applied for an adjournment if they had thought fit and it would probably 
have been granted: for she was an important witness. But the prosecution 
did not apply for an adjournment Nor (Gd the defence. So die case went on. 

146. Rumours inevitably spread that an important witness had been got 
out of the way for political reasons. In view of these rumours I have made 
every endeavour to find out whether anyone paid money to Paul Mann to 
take Christine Keeler away. There has been much speculation that Mr. 
Profumo or Lord Astor paid money to get her to disappear. I have looked 
closely into the matter. 

(vi) Mr. PluliMiO 

147. Mr. Profumo strongly denied that be had paid any money. He very 
frankly i)Iaced at my disposal all records of his bank accounts and of his 
dealings with shares, I have had these examined by an expert accountant 
who was nominated by me. He made a most exhaustive i miteilion and 
made the most minute enquiries. All were answered to his oo&^ate satis- 
faction. I have been through his report myself and am skMHt/fkt Aere is 
no trace whatever of any money being paid by Mr. ProliilMtetly or 
indirectly to or for the benefit of Stephen Ward or Christiat Wtffli or HvH 
Mann or anyone who might ooncdvabty have had a hand in her dMi^ppMianoa. 
All payments by Mr, Profumo at all material times are Ailly acooiuited for. 
I hold the rumour to be entiniy without fonndatimL 


(vii) Lorf AilW ' 

148, Loid Astor, tpo. strongly denied that he had paid aiqr 
himself was away in the United States at the time she disappeaiw. 
away from 27th Febroaiy. 1963, to 12fli April 1963. He, too» Y«y 1 
placed all records of his bank accounts and financial dealings fully M 
I have had them examined by die same expert accountant nominated by me. 
He again made a most exhaustive examination and made more minute 
enquiries. All his queries have been satisfactorily answered I have been 
through his report and there are only these payments by Lofd Astbr to or for 
Stephen Ward which I need mention: 

(1) A cheque for £100 ^ch is said to bave been handed by Stephen Ward 
to the landlord of a flat in Conaeiai^ Road. This was early in 1961 
and had clearly no relevance to the disappearance of Christine Keeler. 

(2) A dieque for £500 on 6th February. 1963» which is dealt with is 
paragraph 110. As I have stated none of this was used to pay for the 
disappearance of Christine Kceler. 

(3) A cheque for £200 on Bth May. 1963. In April. 1963. Stephen Ward had 
surrendered the tenancy of the cottage. Lord Astor paid this sum to 
Stephen Ward in respect of improvements made by him at the cottage. 
Stephen Ward used thb to pay his solicitor's fees. None of it was used 
to pay for the disappearance of Christine Keekr. 

There is no trace of any money being paid by Lord Astor to anyone in 
furtherance of the disappearance of Christine Keeler. All his payments have 
been fully and satisfactorily accounted for. I hold that in bis case also the 
rumour is entirely without f oundatifm. 

(viii) Paul Mann'i Secvily Boxes 

149. Paul Mann strongly denied that he received any money. He has 
some resources but not from Mr. Profulno or Lord Astor. vJhco I asked about 
his bank account he did tell me: "I have a couple of security boxes that 
nobody knows of. I ke^ everything very secretive ... the two security boxes 
are not in my name* entirely secret I just don*t like anybody knowing anything 
about me in that respect ... but they certainly do not contain any such sums 
that were offered to me or given to me or supposed to be given to me- 
Whatever I have is entirely my own. It has not been gained by any weird 
$vays." I have no reason to doubt this statement 

(ix) A PoMlble Motive 

150. I t^st add that there is no evidence whatever that Paul Mann or 
Christine Keeler received any money for her disappearance. It is quite dear 
that, on this trip to Spam. Paul Mann was very sh<^ of moosf . ^ ^ 
Christine Keeler. It must be remembered that she had lost bet oaqr «MncC 
with the newspapers. The Sunday Pictorial told her on 24th FebnilfKtS^ 
that they were not going to publish her story. She had no further OOMWI is 
the offing. The only pecuniary motive that has been suggested to ^ WM 
this : It may be that they both foresaw that if she disappeared, tim wwl be 
a good story to sell to the newspapers and they hoped to find their rewsrd 
that way. If so. they succeeded in their object 

(X) Wm tkm • CMfpincy? ^ / 

151. I return therefore to my initial questica: Is there iw ldeaoe of 
a conspiiacy to obstruct the course of justice by causing Chritftit KMkr to 
dinppeu? There is no evidence whatever to implicate Mr. Pi uft ii l i or Laid 
Astor. There is. however, some evidence against Paul Mann and Chriitine 
Keela : for the very fact of their concerted action in causing het to disappear 
is evidence sufficient for the purpose (sec the dictum of Lord Campbell which 
I have already quoted). But it would be a question tot a jury whether they did 
intend to obstruct the ooorse of justipe. 



0) lie TritI it HeM Witho^ CWrttoe K«lcr "^^^^^ 

15% On 14th Match. 1963. John Edgecombe came up for trial at the 
Central Criminal 0>urt b^ore Mr. Justice Thesiger and a jury. The 
indictments contained five counts: Count 1 dealt with die *iSaMag\ U 
charged Edgecombe that on 27tfa October. 1962. he wounded Goidoa with 
intent to do him grievous bodily harm. Counts 2 to 5 dealt with th» 
* shooting They charged Edgecombe with these oflfences on 14th December. 
1962: shooting at Christine Keeler with intent to commit murder: shootmg 
at her with intent to do g;rievou8 bodity harm: possessing a firearm with 
intent to endanger life: and having an offensive weapon without lawful 

153. Both counsel for the prosecution and for the defence Imew that 
Christine Keelfer, a very important witness, had disappeared, but ndtber 
applied for an adjournment, and the trial proceeded without her evidence. 
Counsel for the prosecution simply said to the jury: **I am unable to call 
the principal witness. Miss Keeler, before you. As far as the police are 
concerned, she has disappeared. It is nothing to do with the defendant^ 
The trial did not finish on 14th March. 1963, but continued on to the 
.15th March, 1963. In the result John Edgecombe was acquitted on the 
counts of shooting with intent to murder (Count 2) and shooting with 
intent to do grievous bodily harm (Count 3). He was also acquitted on the 
count of wounding Cordon on 27th October. 1962 (Count 1). But he was 
convicted of possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life (Count 4). 
(The Judge discharged the jury ftom giving a verdict on Count 5.) 

154. After the verdict, evidence was given of John Edgecombe*s 
character. In 1951 he was convicted on two cases of stealing, in 1959 for 
Uving on immoral earnings, and in 1962 for unlawful possession of 
dangerous drugs. The Judge sentenced him to imprisonment for seven years. 
He appealed against his conviction and sentence but on 27th May. 1963, Ihe 
Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the appeal 

155. It seems plain that the absence of Christine Keeler had an important 
influence on the course of the case. As the Lord Clucf Justice said. "The 
fact that the Jury acquitted on the first two (shooting) charges seems to this 
Ourt natural in the absence of the girl". I may perhaps add that the 
acquittal on ^^e ' slashing ' charge seems natural, ako, in the absence of 
the girl over whom the men were quanelling. 

(ii) The Attomey-Geiienl Makes 

156. The Attorney-General, of course^ had nothmg to da 
prosecution of John Edgecombe. The first he heard of the (\\fmi„, ~-w 
of (liristinc Kcder was from the evening papers. Next day rumow wM 
circulating round the Temple that an important witness had been fOC out 
of the way for political reasons and that some bargain had been made that 

tb6 case should go on without her. I am satisfied that the Uwytfi for the 
pnuecutioa were party to no sudi baigam. Counid for the pn — - 
to the Attorney-General and cxplwned how it was diat 
proceedod without this witness. U was his dednpa alone 
reasons: (a) He thought there was sufficient evidence widM W Mng 
witness: (fr) John Edgecombe was in custody; and (p) the ttM y Aeao; ^ 
been postponed once because of the iDness of a witness. I wodi aoc wish ^. 
to question these reasons— they are cogent^t I think that, in the leialt. 
it was an unfortunate dedsiom. It made it difficult for the pfOsecobOD to 
nsk for a conviction of John Edgecombe on tfie charge slashing * Lucky ' 
Coidon on 27tix October, 1962. and on the charges of shooting at Christme 
Keeler on 1401 December, 1962, with intent to mufder her or cause her 
fiievotts bodily hann (John Edgecombe was not convicted on any of time 
charges): and it made it possible for John Edgecombe to complain (as h0 
complained to me) that he had no opportunity to cross-examine her as to 
her character and as to the fact that the gun was. as he said, her guh. (It ia 
always a telling point for a defendant to say he had no opportunity to 
cross-examine the chief witness for the prosecution.) More important even 
tiian this, it heightened the suspicion that her disappearance was manoeuvred 
for political reasons. It Was thought to tie in Mr. Pfofumo's mtercst that she 
should disappear and he was , supposed to be at the back of '%'\f: ■ . 
' 157. The Attorney-General made immediate inquiries into the matter. 
He saw Mr. Profumo and asked him whether he had anything to do with 
the disappearance of the witness and Mr. Profumo assured the Attorney- 
General that neither he nor anyone on his behalf had had anything to do 
witii the absence of Christine Keeler as a witness at the triaL 


161. On the rigbt-haod side of the page there wu » phototraph of ^ 
Christine Keeler headed "VANISHED OLD BAILEY WITNUS'*. and 
below: -M . 

"This is ChrisUne Keeler. the 2l-ycu-old model who ^.fonad to 
be missing yesterday when the Old Bailey trial of a mttt iecOMd of 
attempting to murder her began, The jury was told: ' At Cir M Ihe police 
are concerned, she has simply disappeared 

On an inner page there were four striking photographs of Christine Keeler 
from which most people could readily Infer her calling. 

162. In p<nnt of fact, Mr. Profumo had never seen the f*rimc Minister 
nor ofEered his resignation. All that had happened was that, six weeks earlier* 
he had seen the Chief Whip and asked if he ought to resign and had been 
told that if there was no truth in the rumours, he should not resign. The 
Daily Express was not the only newspaper to get the story of an offer of 
resignation. The Liverpool Daily Post had it also. ' ' ' 

163. The Daily Express told me that the juxtaposition of the two stories 
—Christine Kccksr's disappearance and Mr. Profumo*s resignation— wa< 
entirely coincidental and supplemented it with reasons. Accepting this to be! 
so. it had nevertheless unfortunate results. It is true, of course, that those o£ 
the readers who bad not heard the rumours would not take it that there waa 
any conijiection between the two stories. But it would seem that some of 
their readers, namely those who had heard the nunour of Mr. Profumo'* 
association with Christine Keeler, now added to i/ this further rumour, that 
he was responsible for her disappearance. To them it would carry « 
defomatoiy meaning. I - ^ • 

(iii) The Attorney-General is Consulted 

164. The front page of the Dai7y Express aroused a good deal of alarm. 
The Chief Whip felt the thing was getting out of hand. He asked whether it 
was actionable. On the self -same day. 15th March, 1963. the Prime Minister 
himself discussed the position with the Attorney-General. The Attorney- 
General thought it would be premature to issue any writs or anything of 
that sort He took the view that there was nothing in the newspaper that 
could be described as defamatory : and that the right course was to wait for 
the Sunday newspapers and see what, if anything, they published. 

<iv) The SoBdqr Pktoiinl Pkblish Stephea WafiTt Sloiy 

165. - The Sunday Pictorial waited iB after the Edgecombe case to 
publish Stephen Ward's story. They had got it all ready beforehand. It was 
approved by Stephen Ward and his solicitors. The fee was to b« iS75. It was 
to be paid direct to Stephen Ward's solicitors. The reMOB fts because 
Stephen Ward owed his solicitors £475 tot the costs of all Ihmttd to stop 
Christine Keeler's story: and his solicitors wanted to foe son fppik money. 

166. So. as soon as the Edgecombe case was trm^'^m Sondsy, 
17th Mardi. 1963. tiie Sunday Pictoiia published Stephen WtMmatey, They 
combined it with a cogent comment on the disappearance of difiitine Keeler. 


e front paie. thete was a laife photograph of her. Then below in kiga 

by Stephen Ward", followed by this description: • 
This is Christine Keeler. the 21^ear-oid red-head model iriMiCliflM 
made news this week as the misfflng witnbss in aH Old Bailif dtqdm 
trial. Christine knew a number of distinguished men in pubfic UK IM 
she fear they might be named in iht case? What tt she like, this gift wiM 
came to London and became the friend of the famous and the wealthy? 
Who knows her better than Stephen Ward? * ' 
On the inside pages there was the article by Stephen Ward on ** My friendship 
with Christine **. But there was not a word about Mr. Profumo in it so it 
gave him no cause of action. A day or two later the newspaper paid Stephen 
Ward's solicitor £525 for the story, and that was the end of that transactioiii 
subject, however, to the ' Darling * letter. 

(v) Tic * Dariiiv' Utter is Handed Back 

167. One important tUiqg. however, remained to t>e done. The Sunday 
Pictorial had all this time held the original of the * I>U'ling * letter, that is, the 
letter of 9th August. 1961. by Mr. Profumo to Christine Keeler. They had 
kept it in their safe. It was the most talked of unseen letter in London, but 
no one asked to see it. And they luui photographs of it too. They had it in 
mind, of course. On 15lb March. 1963. when Stephen Ward's story had beeii 
accepted and the solicitor went to approve it. the newspaper editor mentioned 
the letter He told Stephen Ward's solicitor: "I have got in my possession 
the indiscreet letter. Once things are over and done with, 1 will let you have 
it." This did not form part of the negotiations. There was no bargain about it 

168, The Sunday Pictorial continued to keep the letter. Even after the 
Edgecombe case, no one asked to see it Even after Mr. Profumo's statement 
in the House on 22nd March. 1963, no one asked to see it But eventually 
the Sunday Pictorial did not want to keep it any more. They wanted to get 
rid of it. They suggested to Stephen Ward's solicitor that he should have it 
So on Wednesday, 3rd April, 1963, Stephen Ward's solicitor went and got 
it from tiiem. But boUi the newspaper and Stephen Ward's solicitor soon had 
second thoughts about the propriety of this. They seem to have come to 
the conclusion that the proper person to have the letter was Mr. Profumo's 
solicitor, because the copyri^t in it belonged to Mr. Profumo. So on 5th April. 
Stephen Ward's solicitor handed it over to Mr. Profumo's solicitor. But the 
newspaper kept their photog^phs of tiie letter. After all they had paid 
Christine Keeler £200. Maybe the photogni^ of the letter would oonw in 
useful one day. 

. ^ .. . . > O 

CHAPTER xn ^'-""^ 


(i) Hm Mto b Railed hi Ihe Umm 

169. The disappeanuce of Chrisfine Keeler^-and the trout page ot the 
Daily Express— had the inevitable result Riunoun multiplied that 
Mr. Prohimo was responsible for her disappearance. Within a wedc» <m 
Thusday, 21st March. 1963. these rumours found voice in the House of 
CoauDOos. Shortly after U pjn. Mr. George Wigg rose and said. '*Then 
is not an Hon. Member in the House, nor a jounafist in the Press Gallery, 
nor do I believe is there a person in the public gallery who, in the last few 
days, has not heard rumour upon rumour involving a Member of the 
Government Front Beach. . « . I myself use the Privilege of the House 
of Commons—that is what it is given me for— to ask the Home Secretary 
to go to the Despatch Box . . . , he knows that the nunbur to whkh I refer 
relates to Miss Christine Keeler and Miss Davies and a shooting by a West 
Indian— and on behalf of the Government, categorically deny the truth of 
these rumours .... on the other hand, if there is anydiing in them set op 
a Select Committee.*' Mr. Crossman supported him. About lUO pjn. 
Mrs. Castle asked this question. What if it is a perversion of justice that is 
at stake? The Clerk of the Central Criminal Court is reported as sayinf^ 
*If any member of the public did know where Miss Keeler was. it is his 
or her duty to inform the police*. If accusations are made that there are 
people In high places who do know and are not informing the police, is to 
not a matter of public interest? ** 

170. These were remarks of much significance. They clearly imputed 
that Mr. Profumo had been resix>nable for the disappearance of Christine 

' 171. There were four Ministers who were in the Chamber and heanl 
these remarks, namely. Mr. Henry Brooke, the Home Secretary. Mr. William 
Deedes. the Minister without Portfolio. Sir John Hobsoo, the Attorney- 
General, and Sir Peter Rawlinson. the Solicitor-Generai Mr. lam Macleod 
was in the Chamber for the last part He heard the whole of Mrs. Castle's 
lemaits. After the remarks were made, Mr. William Deedes at once went 
out and i^Msrted them to the Chief Whip (Mr. Martin Redmayne, who had 
not been in the Chamber, and had not heard them). It was clear that 
Mr. Hfcnry Brooke would be expected to reply to them. He could not leave 
the Chamber but the Chief Whip, with the assistance of the Attoiney-General 
and the Solicitor-General, drafted out a form of words to siippat to hun. 
Mr. Brooke adopted them in his reply in these words: 

I do not propose to comment on rumours which been raised 
under the cloak of Privilege and safe from any action nwm» The Hon. 
Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and the Hon. Member lor Blackburn 
(Mrs. Castle) should seek other means of making these inahmatiQaa if they 
are prepared to substantiate them.**